Easy Office







Profile Visits


Total Points

About me

  Member Since : 30 September 2011  (New Delhi)

Mail-id at bottom


I have mentioned it time and again that for the purpose of sec 54 and 54F

INVESTMENT is to be made within specified time limit and COMPLETION of construction does not matter. For this following case laws may be reffered

B.B. Sarkar v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 150 (Cal.)

Satish Chandra Gupta v. Assessing Officer [1995] 54 ITD 508

Commissioner of Income-tax v. R.L. Sood

CIT V Sambandam Udaykumar (2012) 345 ITR 389(Kar.)

more detail in this post



More than one residential house for the purpose of sec 54 and 54F?



(Read the discussion in links, Many cases were considered before concluding the case and special thanks to Mr. Ketan Waghela for contradictions which improved the discussion)


+ CIT Vs Gita Duggal Delhi HC (2013)

+ CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil Andhra Pradesh HC (2013)



K.C. Kaushik v. P.B. Rane, ITO [1990] 84 CTR (Bom.) 62

CIT v D. Ananda Basappa ( 2009 ) 20 DTR 266 (Kar)

There are other contrary judgements at high court level. Some of them including the one of larger bench are also given ,with their view points, in the above discussion

There is no judgement at Supreme court level but since recent high court judgement have been very much in favour of assesse. Assesse may claim the benefit but they should consider the facts of the cases. The main purpose of bringing the sec was to assisst those who would sell their house to settle in new house AND to encourage DEVELOPMENT through construction of new properties. So if IT amendes the provision and restrict the limit to only 1 house property , ruling out the judgement in Gita Duggal and Syed Ali, then one should not be very much surprised. But however the decision made in CIT v D. Ananda Basappa ( 2009 ) 20 DTR 266 (Kar) might still hold. This however is my opinion.

Department tried to file SLP in SC in Ananda Basappa case and SC rejected the petition



What shall be the aggregate value of service for SSP exemption and for Registeration?



It is possible to sell more than 1 residential house property and avail benefit u/s 54, (Do read case there is slight difference in facts)

case:- CIT V. Ranjit Vithaldas 2012 137ITD 267 MUM

Rajesh Keshav Pillai V. ITO (ITAT Mum)


DATE OF PURCHASE (read the case laws cited)



+ CIT -vs- Ved Prakash & Sons (HUF) (1994) 207 ITR 148 (P&H) (Thanks to CA Aman Gupta for bringing this to knowledge)



Property in name of wife or daughter 

CIT V Kamal Wahal [2013] 30 taxmann.com 34 Delhi

Jitendra V Faria [2017] 81 taxmann.com 16 (Mumbai - Trib.)

Shirish Vinayak Godbole Vs. ITO (ITAT Pune)

JCIT v. Smt. Armeda K. Bhaya, 95 ITD 313 (Mum.)

[Reference]CIT Vs. Podar Cements (P) Ltd. & Ors., (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) [see below]

 CIT v Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38/[2011] 203 Taxman 289/15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi)


In CIT v. Podar Cement P. Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC), the Supreme Court has also accepted the theory of constructive ownership Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.V. Natarajan : (2006) 287 ITR 271 (Madras High Court) Director of Income-tax, International Taxation, Bangalore : (2011) 203 Taxman 208 ( Karnataka High Court) The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 228 (AP) has held that the object of granting exemption under section 54 of the Act is that an assessee who sells a residential house for purchasing another house must be given exemption so far as capital gains are concerned. The word "assessee" must . be given wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. There is no warrant for giving too strict an interpretation to the word "assessee" as that would frustrate the object of granting exemption. '

DIT (International Taxation) Vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide

Shirish Vinayak Godbole Vs. ITO (ITAT Pune)

JCIT v. Smt. Armeda K. Bhaya, 95 ITD 313 (Mum.)
CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh, (2014) 327 ITR 278
CIT Vs. Podar Cements (P) Ltd. & Ors., (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC)
[Concept of constructive ownership was accepted by the Supreme Court]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xii vs Shri Kamal Wahal [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67242754/]
CIT v. Ravindra Kumar Arora [Joint Ownership]

Judgements also from P&H and Madras HC 



Processing Fees and other charges in respect of home loan are eligible for deduction u/s 24(b) since it is squarely covered under definition of interest. Also upheld in case of Pentagram Properties Private Limited vs. DCIT [ITAT mum] download

Chintamani Hatcheries (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2000) 75 ITD 116 (Pune) (SMC) held that processing fee for obtaining a loan is a service fee and has to be allowed as interest in view of the definition in section 2(28A)

Read more at: /forum/itax-rebate-on-home-loan-processing-charges-333172.asp


Lease/Hire purchase treatment



Headers info (IT)


24 house interest benami declaration

Taking break for a while but will occasionally be here

I like music,electronic games and wish to be an author


Email- prateek63 @ yahoo.co.in

My Contribution

Click On the Tabs to see my contribution..!!
Note : Hidden content . Visible only to logged in members