Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada Vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Vijayawada

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Siva Jyothi Palam, filed her return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 27/03/2018, admitting a total income of Rs. 16,15,580/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued. The assessee sold vacant land at Gollapudi, Vijayawada for Rs. 5,40,31,000/- and purchased a house property at Chennai for Rs. 6,06,10,000/-. The assessee claimed a deduction under section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption, holding that the property was purchased beyond the stipulated period of 24 months from the date of sale of the land. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the exemption under section 54F of the Act?
• 2. Whether the assessee became the owner of the property only on 17/12/2019, which is beyond the stipulated time?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• ITA no. 2835/Mum./2024

  Mumbai bench

• Vivek Gangadhar Mehendale vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(1)

  Mumbai bench

• Adhi Kumara Guru v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

• ITA No. 6577/Del/2025 (A.Y 2017) ACIT Vs. Pushpa Aggarwal

  Delhi bench

• Mr. Suranjan Roy vs. ITO, Ward 62(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2016-17Dismissed

• Subhash vs. The ITO

  Chandigarh bench