1. Laxmi Narayan v. CIT

402 ITR 117High Court2018#8647 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 54BSection 54FSection 148Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 54bsection 54fsection 54long term capital gaintransfersection 147section 148personinterestsection 14document

Judgments citing 1. Laxmi Narayan v. CIT

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

…IT(IT)ANo.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2nd Stage and Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2nd Stage, 14th Main, West of Chord ITO Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 PAN NO :BLRPN0428A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent by : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date of…

YASH ASHITBHAI VASHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1476/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1476/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Yash Ashitbhai Vashi The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ E/1, Pranav Apartment Ward-1, V/S. Shreyas Tekra International Taxation Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380 014 Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aiipv 9386 Q (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26 /02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasadrao, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 270A(9)Section 54Section 54B

…to qualify for exemption. Although the assessee transferred ₹17,68,000 to his mother’s account, and she paid for the property, mere transfer of funds does not establish ownership. The assessee relied on the judgment in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 117 (Raj. HC), where Section 54B of the Act exemption was granted even when the new property was purchased in the spouse’s name. However, the AO distinguished this case, stating that Sections 54B and Section 54 of the Act have different conditions, and Section 54 does not allow exemption if the new property is not in the assessee’s own name. The asse…

PHOOL SINGH,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1986/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarphool Singh Vs. Ito Plot No.2394 (Basement), Ward – 3(2) Sector – 46, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Eurps 4895 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…t is not the case of the revenue that the said land is being used exclusively by his son. In our view, a pure finding of fact has been recorded by the ITAT which does not require any interference in this appeal.”  Similar is position in Laxmi Naryan vs. CIT 402 ITR 117, High Court of Rajasthan,  CIT vs. Kamal Wahal, (2013) 351 ITR 4, High Court of Delhi,  CIT vs. Natarajan, (2006) 287 ITR 271, High Court of Madras,  CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora, (2011) 52 sot 201, ITAT Delhi Bench and  Sh. Rajkumar Mandani vs. DCIT, ITA No. 835/Hyd/2018 dated 20.11.2018, ITAT Delhi Bench. 9.4 So, it is clear that assessee…

MUKESH KUMAR JAJORIYA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD 2(3), JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 54B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 51/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jajoria cuke The ITO, A-517, Dhawas Akta Nagar, Vs. Ward-2(3), Jaipur. Ajmer Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APJPJ6953M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Deepak Sharma (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@…

GENDALAL JADHAV,INDORE vs. ITO-1(1), INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 466/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigendalal Jadhav, Ito 1(1) 168-G Palakhedi, Gandhi Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Nagar Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aphpj4675K Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2024 O R D E R

Section 54B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Gendalal Jadhav, ITO 1(1) 168-G Palakhedi, Gandhi Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Nagar Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: APHPJ4675K Assessee by Shri Santosh Deshmukh, AR Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement 21.03.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 26.09.2023 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Bhop…

RAVINDER KUMAR,MEERUT CANTT. vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2265/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatravinder Kumar Vs. Ito C/O. M/S. Kartar Singh & Ward – 2(2) Co., 86, Bank Street, Meerut Meerut Uttar Prades – 250 001 Pan No. Amcpk 8771 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. P. Narang, Adv. Revenue By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.11.2023

Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ravinder Kumar Vs. ITO C/o. M/s. Kartar Singh & Ward – 2(2) Co., 86, Bank Street, Meerut Meerut Uttar Prades – 250 001 PAN No. AMCPK 8771 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri R. P. Narang, Adv. Revenue by Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 02.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 08.11.2023 PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Cent…

RAMDAS PANDHARINATH KALE,(HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 436/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 54BSection 54F

…d therefore the addition so made is deleted. Hence this ground of the assessee is allowed.” 10. The ld. AR argued that the Surat Bench of Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Laxmi Narayan reported in 402 ITR 117 (Raj.) held that where assessee had purchased new agricultural land out of sale consideration of his agricultural land, assessee could not be denied deduction u/s. 54B of the Act merely because registered document of new land was executed in name of his wife. On perusal of para 12 of the said order of Surat Bench of Tribunal which held the HUF is…

OM PRAKASH MANGAL,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainom Prakash Mangal Vs Pr. Cit-1, 16B, Mahaveer Colony Jodhpur Ratanada Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acopm 6094 L

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…invited our attention to the notices issued by the AO and the replies furnished by the assessee. The Ld A.R also placed his reliance on the 4 Om Prakash Mangal vs. Pr.CIT decision rendered by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan vs. CIT (402 ITR 117)(Raj). Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the Explanation 2 to sec. 263 of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the Ld PCIT has taken the view that the AO has not conducted proper enquiries with regard to the above said three issues and accordingly initiated revision proce…

MANIRATNAM GEMS PVT. LTD.,BEAWAR vs. ACIT,C-2, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 174/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92Section 92E

…facts, we find that there was no lack of proper enquiry and the original assessment was made after due verification, and PCIT was not justified in invoking the powers under s. 263. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court also in the case of Laxmi Narayan reported in 402 ITR 117 (Raj) following the 16 M/s.Maniratnam Gems (P) Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle-2, Ajmer decision of Malabar Industrial Corporation reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC), had held that if the enquiry has been duly made, the revision proceeding cannot be initiated. In view of the same the order u/s 263 is quashed. 24. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee i…

SHANTI LAL DEORA,SUMERPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 22/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Shri Shanti Laldeora, Vs. A.C.I.T., Hotel Inder Palace, Bhagat Circle- Pali Singh Circle, Sumerpur, Dist.- Pali-306902 (Raj.) Pan No. Adhpd 4172 A Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. & Shrimohitsoni, Adv. Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08/09/2021

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…at law. This Court has also taken the same view in case of Arvind Jewellers whereby the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act was quashed and set aside." iv. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Laxmi Narayan reported in 402 ITR 117 (Raj), the Hon’ble High Court held as under:- Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Lack of proper enquiry— Original assessment order was passed by the AO under s. 143(3) after due verification of all the documents on record—Revision under s. 263 was based merely on change of opinion, hence not sustainable—Malabar 9 ITA 22/Jodh/2021 Shanti la…

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

For Appellant: Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…TA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT invested in "a house" was to be made exempt and without prejudice u/s 54 "one residential house" was to be made exempt fully (i.e. even with investment in name of self and spouse - Ref: Laxmi Narayan vs. CIT 402 ITR 117 (Raj.)) and therefore failed to follow the provisions of law. Ground No. 3:- Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur — 3 erred in not accepting the investment made by assessee in "A House" amounting to Rs.97,82,780/- (K-702 Rs.62,82,780/- and A-605 Rs.35,00,000/-) and further erred in reviewing and setting aside assessment order dt. 26.12.2017…

BALWANT SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD-1(3),, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1105/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…t take possession of the plot under reference. In view of these facts also the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act. 8 The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:  CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal 351 ITR 4(Del)  Laxmi Narayan vs. CIT 402 ITR 117 ( Rajasthan)  ITO Vs. S. Vardarajan 33 TTJ (Mad.) 466 Third  CIT Vs. V. Natarajan 287 ITR 271 (Madras) Where entire consideration had flown from assessee he cannot be denied deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Since entire consideration has been flown from assessee and no consideration had flown from any other person, merely because in sale deed name…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHRI SHARWAN LAL MEENA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 320/JPR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Is A Civil Liability.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shanmuga Priya (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 159(2)(b)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

…CIT in DB IT Appeal No. 112/2012. We further note that in a subsequent decision the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has decided the issue of deduction under section 54B in the 3 Shri Shrawan Lal Meena, Jaipur. case of Shri Laxmi Narayan & Others vs. CIT, 402 ITR 117 (Raj.) in para 7 to 7.3 as under :- “ 7. On the first issue of sec. 263 in view of the decision of Malabar Industrial company Ltd. (supra) Sec. 263 provisions are taken only on the ground of prejudicial and interest loss of the revenue to the Government. Merely change of opinion will not give any right u/s 263 hence, the issue regarding Sec. 263…