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

Shibani Gaind, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(3), Thane

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

ITA 3152/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoफनाभ/ Mrs. Shibani Gaind, Income Tax Officer, Flat No.2203, Meridian, Ward 3(3), Vs. Hiranandani Meadows, Mumbai. Pokhran Road No.2, Thane (W). स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aompg7613M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri B.N. Rao & Ms. Vyoma Rao प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Beena Santosh, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 4.5.2016 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-2, Thane Dated 26.2.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. In This Appeal, Assessee Raised The Following Ground Which Reads As Under:- “The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Order F The Ao By Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains Under Section 54 Of The Act.” 2. During The Proceedings Before The Tribunal, Assessee Raised An Additional Ground & The Same Reads As Under:- “The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Not Admitting The Appeal On Account Of Short Delay In Filing Of Appeal By 16 Days. He Ought To Have Brought To The Notice Of The Appellant During The Course Of Hearing Which Could Have Been Rectified Immediately.” 3. In Connection With The Above Extracted Additional Ground, Ld Counsel For The Assessee Mentioned That The Facts Regarding The Delay Was Not Brought To The Notice Of The Assessee By The Cit (A) Before Denying The Admitting Of The Appeal. The Details For The Delay & The Request For Condoning Is Furnished Before Us Vide Letter Dated 20.3.2017. Further, Ld Ar Submitted That The Additional Ground May Be Admitted & The Issue May Be Remanded To The File Of The Cit (A). Further Also, Ld

For Appellant: Shri B.N. Rao and Ms. Vyoma RaoFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, DR
Section 54