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

Asst CIT 35(1), Mumbai vs. Hemlata Manikrao Hamilapurkar, Mumbai

ITA 44/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./44/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-35(1), 310, C-12, 3Rd Floor Smt. Hemlata Manikrao Hamilapurkar Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc Complex, 1801, Somerset Chs Ltd., Powai Vs. Bandra (E),Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 076. Pan:Aaaph 8475 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Rajesh S. Shah सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) "" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार राजे"" "" "" लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे राजे Challenging The Order Dated 14.10.2014 Of The Cit(A)-28,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer(A.O),Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee,An Individual,Filed A Return Of Income On 31/07/2010,Showing Total Income At Rs. 1.43 Crores.The Ao Completed Assessment On 20.3.2013,U/S.143 (3) Of The Act,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.3.58 Crores.

For Appellant: Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54F

Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6093/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. Cit-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakps 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 06.8.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 29.4.213. 2. The Issue In The Instant Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act, I.E., In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 2(47)Section 269USection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

ITO 27(1)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Anita Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7416/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoi.T.A. No.7416/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) फनाभ/ Ito - 2 7 ( 1 ) ( 1 ), S M T. An I T A Ag A R W A L, Fla T 4 Th Fl Oo R, To W E R N O.6, N O.5 0 4, Bld G - A W I N G, V S. R. N O.4 0 4, Vas H I R A I L W A Y S A B A R I As H I A N A, D E O N A R S T A T I O N Co M P L E X, Vas H I, Far M R O A D, Tis S Co, N A V I M U M B A I – 40 0 7 0 3. D E N O A R, M U M B A I - 8 8. स्थामी रेखा सं./ P A N : Af R P A 1 5 2 3 Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Aarsi Prasad, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By None : सुनवाई की तायीख / D A T E Of He A R I N G : 20.0 6.2 0 1 6 घोषणा की तायीख /D A T E Of Pr O N O U N Ce M E N T : 20 .0 6.2 0 1 6 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 12.12.2014 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-33, Mumbai Dated 22.9.2014 For The Assessment Year 2011- 2012. In This Appeal, Assessee Raised The Following The Effective Ground & The Same Reads As Under:- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (A) Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Has Neither Purchased A New Residential Property Within A Period Of Two Years Nor Constructed A New House Within A Period Of Three Years, Therefore, She Is Not Eligible For Exemption Of Capital Gain U/S 54 Of The Act.” 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee To Represent Its Case. At The Outset, Ld Dr For The Revenue Briefly Narrated The Facts & The Case & Mentioned That The Addition Made In The Original Assessment Relates To The Denial Of Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act. Ao Determined The Income From Capital Gains Amounting To Rs. 41,51,937/-. Before Us, Ld Dr Mentioned That The Tax Effect As Per The Concessional Rates Of Capital Gains Is Below Rs. 10 Lakhs. After Hearing The Ld Dr, Prima Facie, We Find This Case Should

For Appellant: Shri Aarsi Prasad, DR
Section 54