DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of LTCG as the assessee had rightly computed the capital gains as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. The AO's method of adding notional interest was not prescribed by the Act. The Tribunal also ruled that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54F as they owned only one residential property at the time of transfer.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) added back a significant amount on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and under Section 56(2)(vii)(c), treating interest on sale consideration received earlier as income. The assessee had sold property in 2007 but offered LTCG in 2017, claiming indexation benefits. The CIT(A) deleted these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO was justified in re-computing LTCG by adding notional interest on sale consideration received in an earlier year, and whether the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54F when owning a share in another property.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 48,Section 56(2)(vii)(c),Section 54F,Section 49(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(23)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.2,664 citing88 ITR 192 · 1973 · SC
- K.P. Varghese v. ITO989 citing131 ITR 597 · 1981 · SC
- CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.935 citing358 ITR 295 · 2013 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co.551 citing46 ITR 144 · 1962 · SC
- Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association328 citing121 ITR 1 · 1980 · SC
- E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT256 citing26 ITR 27 · 1954 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini228 citing398 ITR 531 · 2017 · SC · Read judgment
- Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu123 citing255 ITR 147 · 2002 · SC
- CIT v. Gita Duggal77 citing357 ITR 153 · 2013 · HC
- CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd.30 citing92 Taxmann 541 · 1997 · SC · Read judgment
- Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT29 citing278 ITR 546 · 2005 · SC · Read judgment
- Dr. Smt. P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT27 citing252 CTR 336 · 2012 · HC
- V.M Salgaocar & Bros (P) Ltd. v. CIT27 citing247 ITR 210 · 2001 · HC
- CIT v. M. J. Siwani22 citing366 ITR 356 · 2014 · HC
- Sudhir Menon HUF v. ACIT21 citing148 ITD 260 · 2014 · ITAT
- CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd.18 citing52 ITR 567 · 1964 · SC · Read judgment
- Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. CIT17 citing307 ITR 312 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
- M.J. Siwani v. CIT14 citing53 Taxmann.com 318 · 2015 · SC
- 54 of the Act.: 1. Ashok G. Chauhan v. Asstt. CIT10 citing105 Taxmann.com 204 · 2019
- Hunsur Plywood Works Ltd. v. CIT10 citing229 ITR 112 · 1998 · SC · Read judgment
- Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia v. ITO5 citing153 Taxmann.com 55 · 2023
- 255 ITR 147 (SC); and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT4 citing148 Taxmann 468 · 2005 · SC
- PCIT v. Dr. Ranjan Pai4 citing431 ITR 250 · 2021 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
These cross appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 29.07.2021 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order.
First we deal with Revenue’s appeal and the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the a
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Deepak Kathari, Kanpur vs ACIT, CC-5, New DelhiDelhi6 Aug 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Hunsur Plywood Works Ltd. v. CIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition on account of LTCG as the assessee had rightly computed the capital gains as per Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. The AO's method of adding notional...
- DCIT, Faridabad vs Smt. Mamta Bhandari, DelhiDelhi10 Jul 2019Dismissed
Also relies on Hunsur Plywood Works Ltd. v. CIT and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii)(c) does not apply to the allotment of bonus shares. Issuance of bonus shares is a capitalization of profits by the company and does not result in an increase in the shareholder's...
- Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Surat vs ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), SuratSurat6 Jun 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on 54 of the Act.: 1. Ashok G. Chauhan v. Asstt. CIT and 1 other authority
The tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 54F, holding that jointly owned properties should not be considered as the assessee's sole ownership for the purpose of the section. The matter concerning the disallowance...
- Kusum Sahgal, Gurugram vs ACIT, Circle-19(2), DelhiDelhi21 Nov 2025Allowed
Also relies on 54 of the Act.: 1. Ashok G. Chauhan v. Asstt. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that joint ownership of residential properties at the time of sale of the original asset does not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 54F. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were ...
- Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs Sheriar Phirojsha Irani, MumbaiMumbai27 Sept 2024Dismissed
Also relies on 54 of the Act.: 1. Ashok G. Chauhan v. Asstt. CIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that joint ownership of other residential properties does not disentitle an assessee from claiming deduction under Section 54F. Following the Madras High Court's decision, the Tribunal found no infirmit...
More judgments on Section 48
- Hansaben Babubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 4(2)(1), AhmedabadITA 2762/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Mukesh Mishra, Thane vs ACIT, Circle 1, ThaneITA 5853/MUM/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Dy. Commissioner of Income… vs Thomas Myladiyil Augustine, AhmedabadITA 1131/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Banwari, Bhiwadi vs ITO, BhiwadiITA 1710/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Reshma Dilip Ramrakhyani, Gandhidham vs ITO Ward 2 Gandhidham, GandhidhamITA 895/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
