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

32 DTR 243High Court2009#4033 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.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 54Section 80AC(ii)Section 80PSection 48

Issues it is cited on

section 54(2)section 143(l)(a)section 80ac(ii)long-term capital assetsection 143(1)(a)(v)section 139(4)section 54fdate of transfersection 80acsection 54section 80asection 45

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

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Harish Chander Khullar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3758/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Harish Chander Khullar, Ward 27(2), Vs. E-88-B, Mansarover Garden, Room No. 1909, New Delhi – 110 015 E-2 Block, Civic Centre, (Pan: Aafpk8788A) Minto Road, New Delhi – 110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 54B

…elates to time contemplated under sub-section (1) of section 139. Therefore, such sub-section (4) has to be read along with sub-section (1). Similar was the view taken by the Division Bench of the Karnataka and Gauhati High Courts in Fathima Bai v. ITO [2009] 32 DTR 243 and CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 286 ITR 274/157 Taxman 398 respectively. [Para 12] Thus, due date for furnishing the return of income as per section 139(1) is subject to the extended period provided under sub-section (4) of section 139. [Para 13] Consequently, the question of law was to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the a…

Sri. Shashank B. Gupta, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2250/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunath

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasan, V AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 54

…on of the ld. DR. 8. The next issue is regarding the claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act. The learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fathima Bai Vs. ITO 32 DTR 243 as well as in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma 196 Taxmann 87. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT & Another Vs. Ananda Basappa 309 ITR 329 and submitted that when the assessee is receiving the built up area in the project then he is eligible for exemption under Section 54 of the A…

ACIT, Cir-I, Siliguri vs. Mrs Harmeet Kaur, Siliguri

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

ITA 1482/KOL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1482/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, -Vs- Mrs. Harmeet Kaur Siliguri (Pan : Afupk 9262 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

…vision, but relates to time contemplated under sub-section (1) of section 139. Therefore, sub-section (4) has to be read along with sub- section (1). Similar is the view taken by the Division Bench of the Karnataka and Gauhati High Courts in Fatima Bai (2009) 32 DTR 243 and Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati) respectively. In view of the above, we find that due date for furnishing the return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act is subject to the extended period provided under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act. Consequently, the question of law is answered 4 Mrs. Harmeet Kaur A.Yr.11-12…

Shri Uday Sood, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4834/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Shri Uday Sood Vs. The I.T.O 1005, Sector – 15 Ward – 8(2) Faridabad, Haryana New Delhi Pan : Adzps 5454 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr- DR
Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…has purchased new property before extended due date of filing of return as per section 139(4) of the Act and filing return within such extended time. 10. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fathima Bai Vs. ITO [2009] 32 DTR 243 [Kar], he submitted that the High Court in the said decision has held that as the assessee having utilized the entire capital gains by purchasing a house property before the extended due date u/s 139(4) of the Act, is eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the…

Farhan Makki Pettiwala, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 6204/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Farhan Makki Pettiwala Assistant Commissioner B-102, Bianca, Panch Marg Of Income Tax - 24(1) 402, Yari Road, Next To Ashoka Vs. Mumbai Towers, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400061 Pan - Aacpp2204P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru
Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…following judicial pronouncements: - (i) CIT vs. M/s. Jagriti Agarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H) (ii) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 296 ITR 374 (Gau) (iii) Anil Kumar Omkar Singh Aurora (ITA No. 4648/Mum/2013 dated 06.11.2013 (iv) Fatima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR 243 (Kar HC) 4.2.2 It is prayed by the learned A.R. that since the assessee’s case is squarely covered by the aforecited judicial pronouncements, the authorities below be directed to grant the assessee exemption claimed under section 54F of the Act. 4.3 Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue placed reliance on the decisions of the authorities below…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri R Srinivas

ITA/384/2015HC Karnataka02 Nov 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 260ASection 4Section 54F

…residential house, within the 3 stipulated time as provided under Section 54F of the Act. While passing the order, the Tribunal, has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Fathima Bai –vs- Income Tax Officer (2009) 32 DTR 243. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue has vehemently submitted that since there was no proper compliance of sub-section 4 of Section 54F of the Act, in as much as no Capital Gains Account was opened by the assessee in which the sale proceeds had been deposited and thereafter utilized for the purchase of land and construction of reside…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sri. C. Nanjundiah, Bangalore

In the result we are of the opinion that assessee has to succeed in this appeal

ITA 733/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri. Naginchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 54F

…nt of Rs.10,01,000/- was deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme, beyond the due date of filing the return, still the claim was allowable u/s.54F of the Act, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatima Bai v. ITO (32 DTR 243). Vis-a-vis the claim of cost of construction of Rs.58,78,232/-, submission of the assessee was that it had actually expended such amount. CIT (A) was appreciative of these contentions. According to him, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatima Bai v. ITO (supra), even deposits made beyond the due date of…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Prashanth Prakash, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 864/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…inal asset took place, or which is not utilized by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139” The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of Fatima Bai v. ITO, [2009] 32 DTR 243 (Kar). In the aforesaid case, the facts were that the capital gains were invested on or before the due date specified u/s. 139(4) of the Act, but the unutilized capital gain had not been deposited in the specified bank account on or before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) & CO 86/Bang/2015 Page 10 of 24 of the Act. On the above facts, the Hon…

ITO vs. R. Srinivas

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

ITA 79/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2015AY 2008-09
For Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, JCIT (D.R.)
Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) as being erroneous in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54 / 54F of the Act by following the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatima Bai V ITYO in ITA No.435/2004 / 32 DTR 243 (Kar) and of the co-ordinate bench of the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Nipun Mehrotra (supra). C.O. No.69/Bang/2014 The learned Departmental Representative was heard in support of the grounds raised (supra) and submitted that the learned CIT (Appeals) while granting relief, to the assessee under Section 54F of the Act, the provisions of sections…