ACIT 28 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. PUNITA SANJAY BIDRA , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-28(2), Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra, Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor, Tower 505-506, Kesar Solitaire, 5Th Vs. No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Floor, Sanpada, Plot No. 5, Complex, Vashi, Sector-19, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Acspb 2454 M Appellant Respondent

section 54F(1) another residential house, income from which is taxable under another residential house, income from which is taxable under another residential house, income from which is taxable under the head income from house property

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

house’ for the purpose of proviso to section 54F of the Act, which, as stated earlier, is other than the ‘new asset’. The proviso only carves out exceptional situation in which the provisions of section 54F will not be applicable. Therefore, as the aforesaid properties

RAVI KANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

house has passed on to the assessee. Therefore the payment made subsequent to allotment letter in installments would not in any manner affect the assessee having satisfied Section 54F(1) of the Act. This submission ignores the fact that Sub Section (1) of Section 54F has been made subject to Sub Section (4) of the Act. The requirement under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

54F of the Act, on ground that at time of sale of capital asset, assessee was owner of more than one residential house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner of said property, deduction under section

ASST CIT 14(1), MUMBAI vs. SANJAY B PAHARIYA, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

property comprising of two adjacent flats is not as per approved plans, exemption u/s 54 and u/s 54F cannot be denied. Section 54 and 54F does not speak about the legality and illegality. Section 54 and section 54F speaks about only investment in house

CHERYL OSCAR PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

properties and the share and earned the capital gain. Related to section 54 on sale of residential house, the assessee claimed exemption for purchasing the residential house. Related to section 54F

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

54F of the Act, on ground that at time of sale of capital asset, assessee was owner of more than one residential house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner of said property, deduction under section

ASHOK KESHAVLAL TEJUJA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 18(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3429/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ashok Keshavlal Tejuja बिाम/ Acit, Cir 18(1), 11T H Floor, Neelkanth Now Cir 21(1), Apertments, Worli Hill Road, Piramal Chambers, V. Worli, Mumbai-400018 1St Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpt1714D (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

house property outside India will be entitled for deduction u/s. 54F before the amendment to Section 54F made by Finance

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

54F was amended and a word ‘a residential house’ was substituted with ‘one residential house’. 2.7. If the aforesaid section is analyzed section 54/54F uses the expression 'a residential house' as was 24 Amirali Akbarali Engineer applicable during the impugned Assessment Year. The expression used is not 'a residential unit'. This is a new concept introduced by the Assessing Officer

ZAINUL ABEDIN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Zainul Abedin Ghaswala, Cit(A), Nfac, At 142/148, Ghaswala Estate Pratyakshakarbhavan, C- S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Vs. 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400102. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Afnpg 7463 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil M. Makhija– Advocate Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 04/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 Order

house properties though jointly , theref , therefore the conditions mentioned in section 54F of mentioned in section 54F of the Act are not fulfilled

ITO 16(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. JAYANT KUMAR J CHOKSI, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 19(2)(1), Shri Jayantkumar Javerilal 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Choksi, Tardeo Road, 524, Sandhurst Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 007 Svp Road, Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aaepc3646E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R. Revenue By : Shri, Rajesh Ojha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2016 O R D E R

house other than the new asset and therefore the assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 54F of the Act and not entitled for deduction. The second objection of the Assessing Officer for denying the claim for deduction under section 54F was that the new property

KENNETH M. MISQUITTA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, 25(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

property for claiming exemption under Section 54F of the Act. We have gone through the provisions of Section 54F of the Act which reads as follows:- 54F. CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF CERTAIN CAPITAL ASSETS NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE

DCIT-8(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. ASHOK SANTU BHAVANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6Th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New Pushpamilan, Mk Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018

54F, read with section2j47j, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house (One house property) - Assessment year Shri Ashok Santu Bhavnani, Mumbai. 2015-16 - Assessee sold a house site in previous year and invested sale proceeds in another property and claimed exemption under section

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

54F. (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period

GOPALKRISHNA PANDU SHETTY,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHRASHTRA

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

house property was in the name of the wife of the Appellant. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax – XII Vs. Kamal Wahal: [2013] 351 ITR 4 had allowed the claim of deduction under Section 54F

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 54 and 54F, providing for exemption from long-term capital gains tax, only if the investment is made in one residential house property

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKUL AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

54F of the Act. 4. The Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts, in stating that the Appellant had purchased two residential house properties instead of a single residential house without appreciating that merging of two adjacent properties to one residential house is not a violation of condition for claiming exemption under section

NAKUL AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

54F of the Act. 4. The Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts, in stating that the Appellant had purchased two residential house properties instead of a single residential house without appreciating that merging of two adjacent properties to one residential house is not a violation of condition for claiming exemption under section