DAULAT SINGH HALDEA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 3(3), JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to 100% exemption under Section 54F as the entire investment was made by him and the son's name was added for convenience. The claim for transfer expenses was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54F for reinvestment in a property purchased jointly with his son. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) allowed only 50% exemption, citing lack of proof for the son's disability and lack of independent income. The assessee also claimed transfer expenses, which were disallowed for lack of evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is eligible for 100% exemption under Section 54F when the new asset is purchased jointly with his son, and whether transfer expenses are allowable without supporting evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 54F,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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. V. Natarajan60 citing287 ITR 271 · 2006 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
Result
In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed as regards 100 % exemption claimed by the assessee-appellant under section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer to make recalculations accordingly in accordance with law.
As regards the claim of transfer expenses, the appeal is hereby dismissed, while confirming the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A). File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/11/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 11/11/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Daulat Singh Haldea, Jaipur. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-3(3), Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT vk;djvk;qDr@CIT(A) 4.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Smt . Rajani Surendra Adamane, Nagpur vs Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), NagpurNagpur25 Sept 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. V. Natarajan
The Tribunal held that the inclusion of the wife's name in the sale deed of the new property does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the full exemption under Section 54F, provided the investment was made by the as...
- M/S Siddhula;L, Bhopal vs The ITO 2(2) Bhopal, BhopalIndore28 Feb 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. V. Natarajan
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to Section 50C(1) if the conditions are met, and that investment in new land made before the registration of the sale deed, from sale pr...
- Balwant Singh, Gurgaon vs ITO, Ward-1(3), GurgaonDelhi3 Jul 2020Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. V. Natarajan
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 for cash deposits was not sustainable as the assessee did not maintain books of account. The issue regarding Section 54F deduction was remanded to the Assessing Office...
- Smt. A. Tamil Ponni, Trichy vs ITO, Ward - IV(3), TrichyChennai25 Feb 2020Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. V. Natarajan
The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to use the higher sale consideration. The claim for development cost was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction for evidence submission and cross-verificatio...
- A Vijayakumari, Pattukkottai vs ITO, Ncw-1, ThanjavurChennai26 Jul 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. V. Natarajan
The Tribunal held that the assessee could claim exemption under Section 54 even if the new property was not purchased exclusively in her name, citing various High Court decisions. However, the Tribunal upheld the Assessi...
More judgments on Section 54F
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
- Nand Kishore Agarwal, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad.ITA 2101/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Jaipal Jona, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), HyderabadITA 1889/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
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
