MRS. KAMAL MURLIDHAR MOKASHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

4) of the Act on 19.03.2013 and till that date, since the payment for purchase of flats was made, assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 6. With respect to the contention of the Revenue that assessee had not furnished any evidence about the four flats being used as a ‘single residential house’, he submitted that

SAFIQUE SADRUDDIN BALSARRA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6 (3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

4) of section 54F of the Act is not attracted if the assessee invests the sale consideration derived from the transfer either in purchasing the property or constructing the residential house

JOHN THOMAS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13 (5),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

house property and are applicable for provisions of sections 22 to 26 of the Act for computing annual value of the property. However, section 54F is an independent provision for granting exemption in respect of capital gain of transfer of certain capital asset. The assessee in this case satisfies the condition provided under the said provision. Therefore, placing reliance

ALLAN EMANUEL FERNANDES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2493/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

property should be purchased in the name of the assessee alone and the word “assessee”. The provisions of section 54F being beneficial provision enacted for encouraging investment in residential houses and should be liberally interpreted. The ld. AR to further support his contentions placed reliance on the following decisions:- i) CIT Vs. V. Natarajan, reported as 287 ITR 271 (Madras

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

property" 11.2 In view of the facts mentioned by the AO in the assessment order, I hold that the appellant is not eligible for any deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act as because he was already owing two residential houses on the date of the transfer. Since the conditions as laid down in Section 54F is not being fulfilled

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

54F the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy it, and it was enough if the assessee established the investment of the entire net consideration within the stipulated period." 13 b. CIT Vs. Sambandam Uday Kumar reported in (2012) 345 ITR 389 (Karnataka H.C.). c. The Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur bench in the appeal No.365/JU/2009

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

4,77,20,760/- as Rent received from Matrix as Income from House Property and AO also treated it as Income from House Property, but the Ld.CIT(A) held it as Business Income. 10.3 The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee explained that the Assessing Officer(AO) has assessed income as Capital Gain. However, the ld.CIT(A) treated the same

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

4,77,20,760/- as Rent received from Matrix as Income from House Property and AO also treated it as Income from House Property, but the Ld.CIT(A) held it as Business Income. 10.3 The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee explained that the Assessing Officer(AO) has assessed income as Capital Gain. However, the ld.CIT(A) treated the same

SHRIKANT VISHWANATH GOGATE,,PUNE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT/TP),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(K/Z) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 54F of the Act could be given to the assessee when the transfer is of any capital asset other than the house property. The assessee has submitted that along with land, residential house has also been transferred i.e. „JAGDISH Bunglow‟ situated at CTS No.781, Final Plot No.128/1, TPS1, Shivajinagar. In the Development Agreement, there is reference of land

VARUN SUNOY SARASWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Varun Sunoy Saraswat, A/901, Crest Avenue, Behind Mahendra Showroom, Mumba Highway, Baner, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Bqkps1546L Vs.

property. The authorities below have denied the deduction under section 54F of the Act since the gift deed was not a registered document. 9. The question which arises is whether the assessee can claim the aforesaid deduction under section 54F of the Act against cost of construction of bungalow, where the plot of land was in the name of mother

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SANJAY NEMICHAND LOHADE,, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

sections 54 & 54F as well. 8. It is submitted before Your Honour that it is not in dispute that the property which was purchased by the appellant and claimed exemption U/sec. 54F is the bungalow along with land, which is house property as per municipal records and taxes have also been paid as residential property. It is further submitted that

RAJESH G. GARGATTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.262/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ………. अपीलाथ" / Shri Rajesh G. Gargatte, Row House No.5, Appellant Orchids, S.No.24/14, D.P. Road, Behind Medipoint Hospital, Aundh, Pune – 411 007. Pan : Aaxpg9886H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Pune. Respondent

house, which permitted the higher deduction. Accordingly, I confirm the learned AO's decision to not allow the exemption u/s 54F in respect of two separately located residential properties.” Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 4. Before us, Ld.A.R. reiterated the submissions made before AO and Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that

DASHRATH V.WAGASKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.270/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Asha Bhausahebthube, The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Vs Ward-1(4), Nashik. Mr.Dashrathv.Wagaskar), Gat No.63, Wagaskar House, Anandvalli, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422 013. Pan: Aampw 5276 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore B Phadke– Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 14/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2022

section 54F of the ITA, 1961 is not fulfilled. The learned CIT(A)-1, ought to have appreciated that, the funds received on sale of land were blocked by SBI for recovery & repayment of loans of M/s. Prathmesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and were not released in-spite of several requests made by the appellant, so that residential house property

SONALI KIRAN SHIVARKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT- CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1881/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sonali Kiran Shiv Arkar, The Deputy L/H Of Late Kiran Sopanrao Vs Commissioner Of Income Shivarkar, A-204, Ganga Tax, Cirlce-7, Pune. Savera, Shivarkar Road, Wanawadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Aprps 3509 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune, Dated 11.09.2019 For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Law & Without Considering Facts & Submission Made, Claimed U/S 54F Amounting To Rs.24,72,272/- In Respect Of Investment In Second Residential House. The Appellant Prays That Deduction U/S 54F Be Allowed In Respect Of Second Residential House.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Original Return On 18/11/2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,41,550/-. The Assessee Then Filed Revised Return On 27/03/2015 Declaring Total Income Of

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

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

4 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 numerous decisions given by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and various tribunal, some of them are noted below: Commissioner of Income tax v. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi) In this case, the assessee sold a land owned by him and claimed exemption of capital gain under section 54F on account

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

4 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 numerous decisions given by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and various tribunal, some of them are noted below: Commissioner of Income tax v. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi) In this case, the assessee sold a land owned by him and claimed exemption of capital gain under section 54F on account

KRUTI LALITKUMAR JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 54F of the Act.” A.Y.2012-13 Therefore, neither a registered Sale Deed nor physical possession of the property is mandatory to get benefit of exemption u/s.54F of the Act. What is required is that the money got through sale of capital asset that should be parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing

LALITKUMAR KESARIMAL JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 54F of the Act.” A.Y.2012-13 Therefore, neither a registered Sale Deed nor physical possession of the property is mandatory to get benefit of exemption u/s.54F of the Act. What is required is that the money got through sale of capital asset that should be parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing

PRANAY LALITKUMAR JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 54F of the Act.” A.Y.2012-13 Therefore, neither a registered Sale Deed nor physical possession of the property is mandatory to get benefit of exemption u/s.54F of the Act. What is required is that the money got through sale of capital asset that should be parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing