Section 54F of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 54F is CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (327 ITR 510), cited in 263 of the 541 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 54F

CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.
327 ITR 510 · 2010 · High Court
263
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for legally unsustainable claims if the assessee provides a substantiated, bona fide explanation without concealing facts or giving incorrect information. However, penalty is attracted if a claim is baseless, legally incorrect, and the explanation lacks bona fides.

Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT
239 ITR 775 · 1999 · Supreme Court
212
citing judgments

For income tax purposes, the 'owner' of a property is the person who is entitled to receive income in their own right, bears the risks incidental to ownership, and utilizes the asset, even if the sale deed is not formally registered. This beneficial ownership is sufficient for claiming depreciation or capital gains exemption under relevant sections.

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. Escorts Finance Ltd.
328 ITR 44 · 2010 · High Court
108
citing judgments

An assessee is liable to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 if they make a claim that is incorrect in law, wholly without basis, and the explanation furnished for such a claim is not bona fide.

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. K.G. Rukminiamma
331 ITR 211 · 2011 · High Court
92
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo
35 ITR 312 · 1959 · Supreme Court
84
citing judgments

The burden of proving that a particular income is exempt from taxation, or is not taxable, lies on the assessee. To claim an exemption or a deduction, the assessee must provide proper materials to establish eligibility.

CIT v. Gita Duggal
357 ITR 153 · 2013 · High Court
73
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.

Judgments on Section 54F

SHARANJIT KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 237/CHANDI/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.237/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Sharanjit Kaur Ito Ward-2 (1) बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 2359, Sector – 23C, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector – 17 Chandigarh - 160023 Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acwpk-0060-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri M. R. Sharma (Advocate) & Om Datt Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Laliet Kumar () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 09-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 23-03-2022. The Prime Grievance Of The Assessee Is Denial Of Deduction U/S 54F Under The Head Long-Term Capital Gains

For Appellant: S/Shri M. R. Sharma (Advocate) & Om DattFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 118Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

Showing 120 of 541 · Page 1 of 28

...