Section 54F of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.86

Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 86 (Capital gains on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 86 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 54F is CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (327 ITR 510), cited in 330 of the 2,628 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
330
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
215
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. K.G. Rukminiamma
331 ITR 211 · 2011 · High Court
104
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. 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. 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
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.

Judgments on Section 54F

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Smt Lata Prakash Pophale, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshalidcit, Circle-1(1), Vs Smt. Lata Prakash Pophale, Pune. Pmt Building, Swargate, Shankarshet Road, Pune. Pan: Abkpp 5101 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi (For Short, „Cit(A)‟), Dated 10.03.2023 For A.Y.2017-18 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Admitting New Evidences/ Documents Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessing Officer. 2. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Violating The Provisions Of Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Condoning The Delay Without There Being A Reasonable Cause For The Same. 4. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Did Not Smt. Lata Prakash Pophale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 54Section 54F

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