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

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

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

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

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

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

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

properties amounting to Rs.55,02,100/- and Rs.50,00,000/- The provision of section 54F is as under: 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of art 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

SHIVAJI RAMDAS SAKHARE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

house property was completed.” 3. Mr. Walimbe invited our attention to the CIT(A) detail discussion affirming the Section 54F deducting disallowance of Rs. 93,05,492/- as follows. “4

HANUMANT CHANGDEO NAKHATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashaliassessment Year 2015-16 The Dcit, Circle-8, Shri Hanumant Changdeo Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Nakhat, Bapu Niwas, Ram Vs Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Nagar, Rahatani, Nr. Akurdi Rly Station, Pune – 411 017. Pradhikaran, Pune Pan Acypn6082D Pin 411 044. Appellant Respondent

section 54F 4 ITA.No.373/PUN/2019 Shri Hanumant Changdeo Nakhat, Pune. deduction claimed in light of statutory amendment restricting such a relief only qua one residential house w.e.f. 01.04.2015. We note that this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Arunkumar Purushottamlal Khanna, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune in ITA.No. 181/PUN/2021 dated 06.07.2022 has rejected the Revenue’s identical stand

MAHADEV DASU JADHAV,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

property is 19/01/2007 and 22/01/2007 respectively. Thus, as per the provision of section 54F, to avail the exemption, the assessee was required to purchase the house within the period from 19/01/2006 to 18/01/2009 or he should have constructed the 4

DHANANJAY KISAN TAPKIR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 10(2), PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

4) Gurgaon that the amount has been invested so the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F. Hence, in this case, it is not clear when the construction was commenced, when it got completed. No details were filed before filing of Return of Income. Even 54F was not claimed. Purpose of section 54F is to promote housing sector

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE vs. KALAWATI VIJAYKUMAR AGARWAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the investment in the property purchased from spouse. That, accordingly, there could not be any reason to deny the Appellant's claim for exemption u/s 54F. In view of the aforesaid logic, the CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made pertaining to disallowance of claim

SANJAY SHIVAJIRAO DODKE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1831/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjay Shivajiraododke, The Income Tax Officer, S.No.136, Opp.Vitthal Mandir, Vs Ward-2(2), Pune. Warjemalwadi, Near Post Office,Pune – 411 058. Pan: Ahtpd 0390 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rahul Gaikwad For Shri Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2,Pune, Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Claim Of Deduction Made Under Section 54F Of The I T Act To The Extent Of Rs.64,69,033/- Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case Properly. 2(I). The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Enhancing The Total Income Determined By The Ld Ao. 2(Ii). The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Completion Of Construction Of House Is Necessary For Allowance Of Deduction Under Section 54F.

house is necessary for allowance of deduction under section 54F. ITA No.1231/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 Sanjay ShivajiraoDodke(A) 2(iii). The Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the assessee’s total income entirely on the basis of presumptions and surmises and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case carefully. 3. The above grounds of appeal

NANDLAL DULICHAND GUPTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

4. Both the Learned representatives next invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion dealing with all these issues as follows : 5 ITA.Nos.926 & 927/PUN./2019 Shri Nandlal Dulichand Gupta, Pune. 6 ITA.Nos.926 & 927/PUN./2019 Shri Nandlal Dulichand Gupta, Pune. 7 ITA.Nos.926 & 927/PUN./2019 Shri Nandlal Dulichand Gupta, Pune. 8 ITA.Nos.926 & 927/PUN./2019 Shri Nandlal