BASARIBANU MOHD RAFIQ LATIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

1) of the Act. . Section 54F(4) of 1961 Act clearly stipulates that the exemption shall be provided u/s 54F of 1961 Act for investing net consideration received on transfer of original asset in acquisition or construction of new residential house property

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-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

54F of the Act. In the first situation where the utilisation of sale consideration are made for purchase/construction of property before the date of filing the return, it was mentioned as before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139. In the second situation, where the amounts are to be deposited in the specified modes

VISHAL DUTT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

property being construction of new residential house at Parsik Hill, Belapur and invested an amount of Rs. 62,60,601/- on construction of a new residential house at Parsik Hills and section 54F of the Act being a beneficial provision of promoting the construction of residential houses , the provisions of Section 54F of the Act are to be liberally construed

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

properties purchased by the assessee will fall, i.e. ‘residential house’ or ‘new asset’ for the purpose of section 54F, as it stood, for the year under consideration. As stated earlier, for the purpose of section 54F of the Act, the expression ‘new asset’ means ‘a residential house’ purchased or constructed by the assessee, within the prescribed period. At this stage

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

1) would not be available where an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house is chargeable under the head "income from house property". The Finance Act, 2001 amended the proviso with effect from 2001-02 to permit exemption under 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

1) would not be available where an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house is chargeable under the head "income from house property". The Finance Act, 2001 amended the proviso with effect from 2001- 02 to permit exemption under Section 54F

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

1-4-1993.]] Later vide Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01/04/2015, section 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

DIPTI NALIN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 17(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M Balaganeshdipti Nalin Parikh, Crescent Bay T4 Apt. 3103-3104, Near, Parel Bhoiwada, Opp. Cancer Society, Jeerabai Wadai Road, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aabpp5053F ............ Appellant Vs. Ito-17(1)(4), 115, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

property. The benefit was intended for investment in one residential house within India. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the aforesaid subsection (1) of section 54 so as to provide that the rollover relief under the said section is available if the investment is made in one residential house situated in India. ITA No. 3274 Mum 2019-Dipti Nalin Parikh

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

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

1. During relevant assessment year, assessees sold their sessees sold their undivided interest in land. The assessee claimed undivided interest in land. The assessee claimed undivided interest in land. The assessee claimed deduction under sections 54 and 54F in respect of long deduction under sections 54 and 54F in respect of long deduction under sections 54 and 54F in respect

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

property. There is no dispute raised by the revenue related to other contention for claiming of exemption under section 54F. But only the issue is with purchasing of single house is related to denial of exemption under section 54 and partial denial of exemption under section 54F. Considering both the sequence, there are no restrictions for purchasing a single unit

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

54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to the amendment, it was clear that a residential house would include multiple residential units. Thus, assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 54.  BRIJ BHUSHAN TAYAL VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 19(1), ITA NO. 3272/DEL/2014 DTD 13.10.2016, [DELHI ITAT] That the intention of legislature before

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

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

ITO WARD - 1(3), THANE, THANE vs. KALPANA PRADEEP AMBRE, THANE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Smt. Kalpana Pradeep Ward-1(3), Ambre, बनाम/ Room No.10, 6Th Floor, 1801, Pristine Vasant Lawns, Vs. Ashar It Park, B-Wing, Pokhran Road No.2, Wagle Indl. Estate, Majiwada, Thane(W)-400604 Thane(W) (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aafpc0868D

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

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

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.23,21 ,83,740/- (Rs.3,00,48,820 + Rs.19,91 ,71 ,462) being disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 54 and 54F by holding that the assessee has made investment in 'a residential house property' without appreciating the finding 2 I.T.A. No.6099/Mum/2014 made

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 (1

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) ..

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in disallowing the I.T.A. No.3429/Mum/2016 exemption claim u/s 54F of Rs 76,66,657, although all the requisite conditions laid down in section 54F of the Act as they stood during the relevant assessment year were duly fulfilled? 2. On the facts