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)

house property before the date of furnishing of return of income within time stipulated u/s 139 of 1961 Act. We have also observed that Section 54F(1) of 1961 Act is specifically made subject to Section 54F(4

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

property situated in India. However, as mentioned above, the conjoint reading of section 4 with section 5(2) of the Act strictly prohibits this action and is abhorrent to this idea. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 9.5(iii) The anomalies appearing above arise only when the provisions of section 5(2) of the Act are not taken into account. When we import

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 claimed by the assessee has been summarised by the Assessing Officer been summarised by the Assessing Officer as under: as under: Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra. 4 Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra ITA No. Rs. Rs. Rs. Consideration received on 30.04.2011 Consideration received on 30.04.2011 6,38,97,750 Invested in house property

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)

properties. The assessee submitted that the A.O. wrongly interpreted that benefit u/s 54F of the Act is available for one residential house whereby the AO erroneously allowed ITA 878/Mum/2014 4 deduction for only one residential house , whereas 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

property has-been utilised before the extended due date of filing of return u/s 139(4). The relevant part of the decision are as under:- Only issue involves in this appeal is as to whether extended period as per section 139(4) has to be considered for the purpose of utilization of amount of capital gain for the purpose

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

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

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

house shall disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction under section 54F of the Act. In the present case, the assessee sold two properties for a total consideration of Rs.3,67,50,000 and earned long-term 4

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

4) which provides that where the property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than one residential houses, exemption would be available only in respect of one house and other self-occupied residential houses will be treated as let out. There is no such provision in section 54 to restrict the exemption of capital gain only to sale

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

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

property within the period specified. In recent Chennai ITAT judgment in case of B.Sivasubramanian vs ITO - ITA No.0l/MDS/2013 decided on 12.03.2014 wherein it has been held that " The provisions of section 54F mandates the construction of a residential house, within the period specified. However, there is no condition that the building plan of the. residential house constructed should be approved

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

section 54F(4) of the Act. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee of the Act. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee of the Act. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that initially she had paid ₹10 lakhs to M/s Umiya Holdings Company Pvt Ltd 10 lakhs to M/s Umiya Holdings Company

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

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 as mentioned in said section meant complete residential house and would not include shared interest in residential house. On revenue's appeal to Hon'ble Karnataka High Court it was held as under: Shweta

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) ..

section 54F before its amendment can be extended to a residential house purchased outside India. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. We answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” The Mumbai tribunal has followed the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

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

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) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4

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

4. The Tribunal, however, allowed assessee's claim for deduction under section 54F deduction under section 54F holding that 'a residential house, on date of sale of long holding that 'a residential house, on date of sale of long holding that 'a residential house, on date of sale of long term asset as mentioned in said section meant complete term

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

section 54F. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently supported the orders of the Ld. CIT(A). Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 36 of the paper book which is the agreement for sale of Lokhandwala property submitted that what was purchased was pent house consisting of 4

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

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

4 7), read with sections 2(42A), 54 and 54F, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Transfer (Immovable property) - Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessee acquired a property from a building society under a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 22-3-2001 - As per terms of agreement, assessee had to construct building on site within two years from date

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

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 purchased