610 (Punjab & Haryana) (ii). Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati HC) (iii).Fathima Bai v. ITO

Q: How many judgments cite 610 (Punjab & Haryana) (ii). Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati HC) (iii).Fathima Bai v. ITO?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite 610 (Punjab & Haryana) (ii). Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati HC) (iii).Fathima Bai v. ITO (32 DTR 243), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 610 (Punjab & Haryana) (ii). Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati HC) (iii).Fathima Bai v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 139(4), Section 143(1), Section 143(3), Section 54, Section 80AC(ii).

32 DTR 243High Court2009#4087 most cited

What is 610 (Punjab & Haryana) (ii). Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati HC) (iii).Fathima Bai v. ITO authority for?

Exemption under section 54 is allowable where the assessee purchased a new property before the extended due date of filing the return as per section 139(4). Section 139(4) is a proviso to section 139(1) providing an extension for filing returns.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rajesh Kumar Jalan · 32 DTR 243 · Fathima Bai v. ITO · section 139(4) · section 139(1) · section 54 · exemption · extended due date · capital gains exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54 Section 80AC(ii)Section 80P Section 48

Issues it is cited on

section 54(2)section 143(l)(a)section 80ac(ii)long-term capital asset section 143(1)(a)(v)section 139(4)section 54f date of transfer section 80ac section 54 section 80a section 45

Judgments citing 610 (Punjab & Haryana) (ii). Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati HC) (iii).Fathima Bai v. ITO

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3092/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 48Section 54

…r Gauhati judgment which has been independently supported by the Punjab Harayana High Court.” 11.2.2 In the above decision, Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatima Bibi Vs ITO (2009) 32 DTR 243 (Kar), Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cae of Jagtar Singh Chawala (2013) 87 DTR 217 ( P & H) and CIt vs jagriti Aggarwal (supra). The relevant finding of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jagriti Aggarwal (supra) has held that “Sub-s. (4) of s. 139 is in fact, a proviso to sub-s. (1) and provides for extension of p…

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…D 308 (Mum.). 5. Nand Lal Sharma v. ITO [2015] 61 taxmann.com 271 (JP. - Trib). 6. CIT v. Jagtar Singh Chawla [2013] 33 taxmann.com 38/215 Taxman 154 (Punj. & Har.). 7. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (supra). 8. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (supra). 9. Fathima Bai v. ITO [2010] 32 DTR 243 (Kar.) 10. R.K.P. Elayarajan v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 206/52 SOT 159 (Chennai) (URO). 11. ITO v. Smt. Sapana Dimri [2012] 19 taxmann.com 15/50 SOT 96 (Delhi) 14. Interestingly, none of the decisions referred above rely upon a binding precedent of the Supreme Court which has settled this issue. The aforesaid interpretation has been approved…

SHRI BHIMGRAD SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BHINGRAD, TAL. LATHI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC),, BANGALORE-560500

Appeals are allowed

ITA 11/RJT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 312 /Rjt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Dhamel Seva Sahkari Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Mandali Ltd. Income Tax (Cpc) Amreli, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic Gujarat – 365220 City Post Office, Bangalore - 560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkas8446E (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

…19-20 139(4) of the Act, cannot be said to be hit by section 80AC of the Act, for that ld. Counsel relied on following case law. (i).Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 (Punjab & Haryana) (ii). Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati HC) (iii).Fathima Bai vs ITO 32 DTR 243 (Karnataka HC)] The ld Counsel also stated that if the issue is a debatable one, then in that circumstances the provisions of section 143(l)(a) of the Act, is not meant to be invoked. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para…

SHREE DAMNAGAR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED ,AT DAMNAGAR, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 313/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

SHREE DHAMEL SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,DHAMEL vs. THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC),, BANGALURU

Appeals are allowed

ITA 312/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

…ied upon the judgment and order of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao (2015) 56 taxman.com 163(Kar.HC), and also the judgment and order of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fathima Bai v. Income Tax Officer, (2009) 32 DTR 243(Kar.). Further, reliance was placed by the assessee on the order of Bangalore-Tribunal , dated 09.12.2020 in the case of Ramaiah Dorairaj v. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 1899/Bang/2018, as well the order dated 31.10.2012 of the ITAT, Chennai Benches in the case of ACIT v. Shri C. Ramabrahmam in ITA No. 943/Mds/2012. It is also submitted by ld. co…

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 208/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…applicable in respect of the assessee so as to avoid payment of long terms capital gain. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court reported as Fathima Bai vs. Income Tax Officer (2009) 32 DTR 243, where in somewhat similar circumstances, it has been held that time limit for deposit under Scheme or utilization can be made before the due date for filing of return under Section 139(4) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent also relies upon a Division Bench judgment of Gauhati High Court reported as Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rajesh…

JERAMBHAI BHAGVANBHAI GOHIL,VARACHHA, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 54B

…bmission, the assessee relied on the decision various High Courts 8 Jerambhai B Gohil including in CIT Vs Jagruti Aggarwal (339 ITR 610 P & H), CIT Vs Jagtar Singh Chawla (259 ITR 388 P& H), CIT Vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan ( 286 ITR 274 Gau) and Fatimabai Vs ITO ( 32 DTR 243 Kol). On the objection of assessing officer that there was reference in the purchase deed about ‘bin Kheti premium patra land’, the assessee explained that land is agriculture land and can be used as ‘NA’ (non-agriculture) subject to premium of payment, which means conditional permission was granted. 9. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissi…

DHARMISTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…Chawla [2013] 33 taxmann.com 38/215 Taxman 154 (Punj. & Har.) 7. CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 339 ITR 610/203 Taxman 203/15 taxmann.com 146 (Punj. & Har.) 8. CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 157 Taxman 398/286 ITR 274 (Gau.) 9. Fathima Bai v. ITO [2010] 32 DTR 243 (Kar.) 10. R.K.P. Elayarajan v. DCIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 206/52 SOT 159 (Chennai) (URO) 11. ITO v. Smt. Sapana Dimri [2012] 19 taxmann.com 15/50 SOT 96 (Delhi) 14. Interestingly, none of the decisions referred above rely upon a binding precedent of the Supreme Court which has settled this issue. The aforesaid interpretation has been approved by…

SHRI SABBIRBHAI DAWOODBHAI SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

ITA 121/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Sabbirbhai Dawoodbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shaikh, 3(1)(4), Anavil Business Vs 7/4539, Galemandi, Centre, Adajan, Surat- Lakkad Kot, 395009 Surat Pan : Aeqps 5688 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 54

…the assessee relied upon the following decisions:-  CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 206CTR361 (Gau)  Ashok Kapasiawala vs. ITO ITA No.2692/AHD/2014 dated 10.09.2015  CIT vs. Shri K Ramachandra Rao TA No.46 of 2014 14.07.2014  Fathima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR 243 (Kar)  CIT vs. Shri Jagtar Singh Chawla TA No. 71 of 2012 (O&M) (P&H)  CIT-Ii vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal TA No. 176 of 2011 dated 03.10.2011  Sri Nipun Mehrotra Vs. ACIT 113 TTTJ 223 (Bang.Tribunal) 9 Sh. Sabbirbhai D Shaikh  Shri Shankar Lal Saini vs. ACIT in ITA No.75/JP/2016 dated 22.11.2016 12. On the other hand, Ld. Senior departmental repr…

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(4)Section 148Section 54

R. LAKSHMAMMA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1084/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri L. Mahesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 54Section 54(2)

…therefore the requirement of deposit of the unutilized capital gain in a specified bank account did not arise for consideration. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fathima Bai [2009] 32 DTR 243 [Karn] wherein it was held that the time limit of deposit of unutilized capital gain in bank account is not required to be seen, if the capital gain is utilized in construction of a new asset within the period contemplated u/s. 54(2) of the Act. 5. The CIT(Appeals), however, refused to admit the additional evidence on the ground that the assessee…

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 96/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke Renu Jain The ITO, Vs. G-13/5, IInd Floor, Malviya Nagar, Ward-5(2), New Delhi 110017. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABFPJ 7560 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akshay Shah (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Miss Chanchal Mee…

MRS. KAMAL MURLIDHAR MOKASHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…u/s 139(4) of the Act and not the due date of filing return u/s 139(1) of the Act, he placed reliance on the following decisions : i) CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [286 ITR 274 (Gau)]. ii) CIT Vs. Jagriti Aggarwal [339 ITR 610 (P&H). iii) Fathima Bai Vs. ITO [32 DTR 243 (Kar)]. He further submitted that the decision in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT reported in 387 ITR 421 relied upon by the Ld. D.R. cannot come to the rescue of the Department and on the contrary, it favours the assessee as the facts are distinguishable because in that case assessee had filed return u/s 139(1) of the Act and the…

SRI. MAMMEN ADENETH PAPPY,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ITO,, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 498/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54F

…sing Officer denied the exemption u/s.54F of the Act on the reason that the return filed within the extended time limit available of filing of return of income u/s. 139(4) cannot be considered. 8.1 The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fathima Bai (32 DTR 243), the Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (206 CTR 361) held that the due date for the assessee to invest the amount of capital gains in purchase/construction of new residential asset or investment in capital gains scheme u/s. 54F of the Act refers to the “extended due date” u/s. 139(4) of the Act. So far as the time limi…

SMT. KANCHARLAPALLI HEMALATHA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Bcmpk6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Malik, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [PAN :BCMPK6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee by : Sh…

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. LATE SRI.K.SASIDHARAN REP BY SMT. K.P.SAILAJA, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 56/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…the law, hence it was requested to dismiss the ground raised by the department o non- allowance of deduction claimed u/s. 54F. 7.4 The Ld. AR relied on the following case law: (a) CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (206 CTR 361)(Guwahati) (b) CIT Vs. Fatima Bai (32 DTR 243)(Kar) (c) CIT Vs. Jagriti Agarwal (339 ITR 610)(P & H) (d) Nipun Mehrotra Vs. ACIT (110 ITD 523)(Bang.) (e) Muthuletchumi Janardanan Vs. DCIT (34 CCH 193)(Coch) (f) ACIT vs. Smt. Umayal Annamalai (ITA No. 415/Mds/2015 (dt. 22/04/2016) (g)) Pr. CIT vs. Shankar Lal Sahni (253 taxman 308)(Raj.) 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the…

ITO WARD - 1(3), THANE, THANE vs. KALPANA PRADEEP AMBRE, THANE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5156/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Smt. Kalpana Pradeep Ward-1(3), Ambre, बनाम/ Room No.10, 6Th Floor, 1801, Pristine Vasant Lawns, Vs. Ashar It Park, B-Wing, Pokhran Road No.2, Wagle Indl. Estate, Majiwada, Thane(W)-400604 Thane(W) (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aafpc0868D

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 45Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…applicable in respect of the assessee so as to avoid payment of long terms capital gain. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court reported as Fathima Bai vs. Income Tax Officer (2009) 32 DTR 243, where in somewhat similar circumstances, it has been held that time limit for deposit under Scheme or utilization can be made before the due date for filing of return under Section 139(4) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent also 10 Smt. Kalpana Pradeep Ambre relies upon a Division Bench judgment of Gauhati High Court reported as Commi…

THULASI NARAYANAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 3103/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 54

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु"आर. एलरे"डी, "या"यक सद"यएवं, "ी एस जयरामनलेखा सद"य समक् BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. No. 3103/Chny/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Thulasi Narayanamurthy, The Income Tax Officer, No. 21, Old No. 10, 3rd Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -3(5), Wallace Garden, Chennai 600 034. Chennai – 600 006. [PAN: ABYPN 3072E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ(/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. T. Banusekar, CA Revenue by : Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JC…

K.K.SRINIVASAN,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 148Section 54F

…Act. What was held by their lordships at para 9 to 11 of its judgment are reproduced hereunder:- ‘’9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported as Fatima Bai v. ITO [2009] 32 DTR 243, where in somewhat similar circumstances, it has been held that the time limit for deposit under the scheme or utilisation can be made before the due date for filing of return under section 139(4) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent also relies upon a Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court reported as CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jala…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2