VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

section 54 for purchase of residential house in a foreign country to which the Act does not extend. ii. By relying on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT 'F' Bench Mumbai in the case of Shri Farhad Bottlewalavs ACIT 18(3), Mumbai in ITA No. 1761/Mum/ 2012 for AY 2008- 09, wherein claim of benefit u/s 54F was denied

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)

3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act that during the previous year, the assessee has sold two plots of land and invested in two residential properties and the assessee does not have a third residential property. The assessee stated that if at all the benefit u/s 54F of the Act is to be allowed only for one 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

3 years after the date of transfer of original asset. The proviso further requires that such residential house, other than the residential house owned on the date of transfer of original asset, is chargeable under the head ‘Income from House Property’ and that residential house is other than the new asset. As per section 54F

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 before filing the return of income on 4 t h November, 1996 for extending the benefit of exemption under Section 54F of the Act. Therefore, in the present facts, the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Rajesh Kumar Jalan (supra) would not apply so as to hold that the appellant had complied with the Section 54F

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

3. As regards deduction under section 54F, revenue authorities having found that assessees were having two residential houses having one half share each therein on date of sale of land, rejected assessee's claim. 9 AY 2018-19 Sheriar Phirojsha Irani 4. The Tribunal, however, allowed assessee's claim for deduction under section 54F holding that 'a residential 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

3 (three) 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

3. As regards deduction under section 54F, revenue authorities having found that assessees were having two residential houses having one half share each therein on date of sale of land, rejected assessee's claim. 4. The Tribunal, however, allowed assessee's claim for deduction under section 54F holding that 'a residential house, on date of sale of long term asset

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

properties though jointly , theref , therefore the conditions mentioned in section 54F of mentioned in section 54F of the Act are not fulfilled in this case not fulfilled in this case hence, the assessee is not , the assessee is not eligible for exemption for exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer . The Ld. Assessing Officer relied

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

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

section 54 and 54F to the assessee for investment in two separate house properties which were converted into one residential unit illegal after taking possession. 3

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

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) ..

property outside India will be entitled for deduction u/s. 54F before the amendment to Section 54F made by Finance Act 2014, which has come into effect from 01.04.2015 . We are concerned with previous year relevant to AY 2011-12 which is prior to coming into force Finance Act, 2014. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

SHALINI ANAND MURTHY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

property expired on April 2, 2010 and the assessee was supposed to pay the expired on April 2, 2010 and the assessee was supposed to pay the expired on April 2, 2010 and the assessee was supposed to pay the Shalini Anand Murthy 3 ITA 2404/Mum/2019 capital gain tax on the unu capital gain tax on the unutilized balance lying

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

property. The assessment was completed on 30.12.2011 under section 143(3) of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1,24,25,400/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer denied deduction under section 54F holding that the house

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

3) The Learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing deduction of Rs. 36 Lakhs claimed by the appellant u/s. 54F. 3.1) The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that as the appellant has not purchased a new residential house but only acquired perpetual tenancy, deduction u/s. 54F was not allowable. 3.2) The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that a 'Perpetual

ABDUL RAHIM SULEMAN GHASWALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Abdul Rahim Suleman Ghaswala, Dcit-41(4)(1), 142/148, Ghaswala Estate, Sv Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Road, Jogeshwari (West)-400102 Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East)-400051. Pan No. Aalpg 9087 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Sr. Dr : Date Of Hearing 27/12/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 01/01/2024

house property in Jogeshwari, Mumbai apart from o Jogeshwari, Mumbai apart from owning various commercial wning various commercial properties vacant land and under properties vacant land and under-construction properties. The construction properties. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice asking the assessee to Assessing Officer issued show cause notice asking the assessee to Assessing Officer issued show cause notice

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, providing for exemption from long-term capital gains tax, only if the investment is made in one residential house property, one can still invest in more than one house and claim the lax: exemption, provided the taxpayer can prove that all such flats are used as a single residential nit by the family, In the abovementioned case, two residential

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

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

Section 54F of the Act in respect of a residential house property purchases of an assessee in the name of his wife. The aforesaid decision was followed by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhagwan Swaroop Pathak Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3

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

3 [***], being buildings or 4 lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of 5 [one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place