Section 54 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.82

Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 82 (Profit on sale of property used for residence) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 82 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 54 is Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd. (226 ITR 625), cited in 244 of the 1,745 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 54

Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.
226 ITR 625 · 1997 · Supreme Court
244
citing judgments

Amendments to tax laws that are explanatory, declaratory, curative, or clarificatory in nature are judicially construed as retrospective, especially if they are intended to remedy unintended consequences.

Sanjeev Lal v. CIT
365 ITR 389 · 2014 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

For claiming capital gains exemption under beneficial provisions like section 54, the 'date of transfer' can be the date of the agreement to sell, particularly when coupled with substantial advance consideration or an enforceable right, adopting a purposive and liberal interpretation to acknowledge the assessee's intent.

CIT v. Manjula J. Shah
355 ITR 474 · 2013 · High Court
113
citing judgments

For capital assets acquired by gift or will, the indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48 is computed with reference to the year the previous owner first held the asset. The period of holding for determining if an asset is long-term also includes the previous owner's holding period, as per Section 2(42A).

CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa
309 ITR 329 · 2009 · High Court
97
citing judgments

For exemption under Section 54, the expression 'a residential house' allows for investment in multiple residential units that form one functional unit, as 'a' does not imply a singular number. The amendment to Section 54, effective from April 1, 2015, is prospective.

CIT v. Gita Duggal
357 ITR 153 · 2013 · High Court
77
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under sections 54 and 54F, the term "a residential house" does not restrict the exemption to a single residential unit and can include multiple contiguous or combined residential units treated as one house.

CIT v. Kamal Wahal
351 ITR 4 · 2013 · High Court
71
citing judgments

An assessee is eligible for capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F even when the new residential house is purchased in the name of their spouse, provided the investment comes from the assessee's own funds. This allows for a purposive construction of these provisions.

CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan
286 ITR 274 · 2006 · High Court
66
citing judgments

Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, which allows for filing a belated return, acts as a proviso to Section 139(1). Consequently, the time limit for depositing amounts or utilizing funds to claim exemptions, such as under Section 54, extends up to the due date for filing a return under Section 139(4).

CIT v. Gurnam Singh
327 ITR 278 · 2010 · High Court
66
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Section 54F, the new residential house is not required to be purchased exclusively in the assessee's own name; acquisition in joint names or in the name of a spouse qualifies for the exemption. This principle also applies to Section 54 due to their pari materia nature.

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana
340 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property by way of sale is legally valid only through a duly stamped and registered deed of conveyance. Unregistered instruments like agreements to sell, General Power of Attorney, or wills do not transfer title or create an interest in the property.

CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao
56 Taxmann.com 163 · 2015 · High Court
62
citing judgments

The exemption under Section 54F (or Section 54) for long-term capital gains cannot be denied if the assessee invests the entire sale consideration in constructing a residential house within the prescribed three-year period, even if the amount was not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme before the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1). The purpose of the Capital Gains Account Scheme is to preserve the exemption when actual investment is pending, not to deny it if actual utilization occurs within the statutory timeframe.

Judgments on Section 54

Anil Kirthisimhan Wijeyanayake, Coimbatore vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore

ITA 1663/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2017 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Anil Kirthisimhan Wijeyanayake Acit बनाम/ 160,Thiruvenkatasamy Road Non-Corporate Circle-2, Vs. R.S.Puram,Coimbatore-641 002. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aewpa-8469-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman(Advocate) – Ld.Ar "#थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal Was Disposed-Off Vide Common Order Dated 06- 12-2022. However The Order Was Recalled For Limited Purpose Of Adjudication Of Ground No.1 Vide Ma No.12/Chny/2023 Dated 17-02-2023 Since That Ground Remained To Be Adjudicated. Accordingly, The Appeal Has Been Placed Before This Bench For Limited Purpose Of Adjudication Of Ground No.1 Which Read As Under: - 1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Ao Not To Consider The Cost Of Flats To The Extent Of Rs.58,99,986/ For Computing Exemption U/S 54 & 54F Of The I.T.Act, 1961, In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman(Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 50DSection 54Section 54F

Arunava Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 203/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.203/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Arunava Bhattacharjee…………………………………..........….…… Appellant P 190/1, Bidhan Nagar Road, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700067. [Pan: Aeipb7392A] Vs. Acit, Circle-9(2), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 09, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.02.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Ld. Pcit Observed From The Assessment Records That The Assessee Had Sold A Guest House, Located At Ganganagar On 20.02.2016 At Rs.4,50,00,000/- Which Was Acquired On 01.12.2007. The Assessee Computed Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.2,00,26,945/- From The Sale Of The Aforementioned Property & Out Of The Said Capital Gain, The Assessee Had Claimed A Deduction Of Rs.1,17,03,326/- U/S.54Ec In Itr. But In Its Revised Computation The Assessee Had

Section 1Section 263Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

Shri Ramesh Allada, Usa vs. ITO, Intnl. Taxn.1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 782/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 54

Shri Suresh Allada, Australia vs. ITO, Intnl Taxation Ward -I(I), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 781/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 54