ACIT v. Dr. P.S. Pasricha

20 SOT 468Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#9505 most cited

What is ACIT v. Dr. P.S. Pasricha authority for?

The source of funds used to purchase a new residential property is irrelevant for claiming exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The exemption is granted if a new residential house is acquired within the specified period, regardless of whether the sale proceeds of the old asset were used for the purchase.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Dr. P.S. Pasricha · 20 SOT 468 · Section 54 · Section 143(3) · Section 250 · Section 54F · capital gains exemption · source of funds · purchase of new house · reinvestment

Sections most often in play

Section 54Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

Judgments citing ACIT v. Dr. P.S. Pasricha

Late Hina Harendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Ward 22(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3317/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

…d asset. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the following judicial proceedings: (a) ACIT Vs. Dr. P.S. Pasricha [2009:BHC-OS:18153-DB] [Income Tax Appeal No.1825 of 2009 judgment dated 07/10/2009] [confirming the decision of the Tribunal reported in (2008) 20 SOT 468 (Mum)] 4 ITA No. 3317/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (b) M. George Joseph(2022)440 ITR 589 (Karn). (c) CIT Vs. Kapil Kumar Agarwal (2016) 382 ITR 56 (P&H). (d) Ms. Moturi Lakshmi (2020) 428 ITR 462 (Mad) (e) Smt. Sabita Devi Agarwal (2019) 69 ITR (Trib) 231 (Kol). (f) Hansa Shah Vs. ITO (2019) 69 ITR (Trib) 334 (Mum) (g) CIT Vs. R.Srinivasan (…

Shri Reji Easow, Mumbai vs. ITO - 3(5), Thane

In the result, this appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1557/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 54

…e specified period and source of funds is quite irrelevant. Nowhere, it has been mentioned that the funds received as consideration from sale of original asset must be utilized for the purchase of the new residential house [ACIT vs. Dr. P.S. Pasricha : (2008) 20 SOT 468 (Mumbai) (11-01-2008)]. Since the date of purchase falls within a period of 2 years from the sale of Original Asset (i.e. 21.05.2014), the Assessee is entitled to benefit under Section 54 of the Act. The alternate contention of the Assessee, that the benefit of Section 54 be granted to the Assessee by treating the transaction as a case of ‘constru…

Keshav Dutt Shreedhar, Shimla vs. DCIT, Shimla

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/CHANDI/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vishal MohanFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 54

…tains the reference to the legal position thereon as argued before the CIT(A) and is relied upon in the present proceedings also. Reliance, accordingly, yet again was placed on Ajit Vaswanit V. CIT92001)117 Taxman 123 (delhi), CIT Vdr. P.S. Pasricha (2008) 20 SOT 468 (Mum), Ishar Singh Chawla vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2010] 130 TTJ 108(MUM.)(UO), J.V. Krishna Rao V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income -tax, Circle 3(3), Hyderabad IT APPEAL NOs. 1866 & 1867 (HYD.) OF 2011 amongst others. Thus, this fact noticed by the AO, it was submitted, had already been examined in the original proceedings. Even…

Sanmeetkaur M. Kohli, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6500/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “G” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 6500/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Sanmeetkaur M. Kohli The Income Tax Officer, C/o 401, LE-Orchid, 15th Ward(IT), 3(1)(1), Road, Opp. Khar Gymkhana, Vs. Room No. 139, 1st floor, Khar (West), Mumbai Scindia House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AFEPK4571K अपीलाथी…

Anurag Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2626/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita No. 2626/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anurag Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O R B Tyagi, Flat No. 303, Ward-1(1), Super Tech, Avant Grade Plot Ghaziabad No. 1, Sector-5, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpt6848P Assessee By : Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prasar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.01.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…other purpose and requirement for exemption is satisfied if yet another property is acquired within the prescribed time and subject to prescribed condition." Ajit Vaswani v. DCIT (2001) 117 Taxman 123 (Delhi Tribunal) That in ACIT v. Dr. P.S. Pasricha (2008) 20 SOT 468 (Mumbai Tribunal), the assessee transferred a residential property for Rs. 1.40 crore. The sale consideration was utilized for acquiring a commercial property though, the assessee acquired two adjacent residential flats in one building within the stipulated time and claimed exemption u/s 54. The A.O. held that the sale consideration must be used f…

Deepak A Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 526/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deepak A. Shah Income-Tax Officer- 105/A-2, Shah & Nahar 18(1)(3), Vs. Industrial Estate, Lower Parel Parimal Chambers, (W), Lalbaug Parel Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaips6177J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

…the capital gain exemption u/s 54/54F to the extent of Rs.22,23,500/- and brining to tax the balance unutilized amount of Rs.50,11,700/- as capital gains. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in ACIT v. Dr. P.S. Pasricha (2008) 20 SOT 468 (Mum), judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Dr. P.S. Pasricha (ITA No. 1825 of 2009) dated 07.10.2009, Neelam Handa v. ITO (ITA No. 384/Del/2016) order dated 13.05.2016 by ITAT Delhi. It is submitted that section 54 speaks about investment to be made in new house and it does not restrict the source of money to be the same as that of…

Shri Rajesh Dayaramani, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Cir-8, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 449/NAG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 54F

…original assets. It is seen that assessee has constructed the house within prescribed limit and source of fund is not relevant for claiming exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Dr. P.S. Pasricha, 20 SOT 468 (Mum.) has held that it is not necessary that same funds must be utilized for the purchase of the another residential house. The decision of Tribunal has been upheld by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in ITA no.1825 of 2009 vide judgment dated 7th October 2009. The ratio laid by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court squarely applies to the f…

ITO 25(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pallavi V. Goradia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 604/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 253Section 254(1)Section 27Section 54F

…rchase of new house and purchase the new house from other sources. It was further argued that one to one nexus is not required while investing the sale proceed to purchase a new house as per the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT vs. Dr. P.S. Pasricha (2008) 20 SOT 468 and the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal in Munner Khan vs. ITO (2010(14 SOT 504 (Hyd.) Smt. Pallavi V. Goradia 6. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The AO denied the claim of exemption u/s 54F holding that no such claim was made while filing return of income but the same w…

Smt. Neelam Handa, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 384/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishineelam Handa, Ito, C-7/7, Ground Floor, Ward-20(4), Vs. Model Town-Iii, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abgph5388D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Dharampal Maini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR
Section 54Section 54F

…t under section 80C or 88 the assessee is required to make certain investment up to a particular limit in certain schemes, as these sections does not talk about the investment out of a particular nature of receipt. 17. In the case of Dr. P. S. Pasricha [2008] 20 SOT 468 (Mumbai), the Tribunal has examined the issue whether the assessee is required to invest the same receipt which were received out of the sale proceeds. The Tribunal has held that the requirement of section 54 is that the assessee should acquire a residential house within a specified period and it is not necessary that same funds must be utilised f…

ACIT, Rewari vs. Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav, Gurgaon

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4169/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddyay : - 2008-09 Acit, Circle: Rewari Vs. Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav Aayakar Bhawan, Model Town 158, Housing Board Colony Rewari Jharsa Road, Gurgaon Pan: Aabpy 9819 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr.D.R. Respondent By: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A
Section 54F

…t of law is that the assessee should purchase a residential house within the period and source of funds is quite irrelevant. 6 A.Y. 2008-09 Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav, Gurgaeon 6.1. He relied on the following case law. 107 Taxman 591 (Ker.) KC Gopalan; and (b) 20 SOT 468 (Mum.) ACIT vs. Dr.P.S.Pasricha in ITA 1825/2009 vide judgement dt. 7th October,2009 by Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 6.2. On the issue of utilization of net consideration he submitted that there is no requirement in law, that there should be sufficient balance in the bank account, on the date when the cheque is issued. The undisputed fact is that t…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Tnn Shetty(HUF), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1129/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Vishnu Bharath, CA
Section 148Section 54E

…onds equivalent to the sale realization, irrespective of the fact from which funds such investment is made.” 3.6 The Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Harishchandra G.Kathpal [ITA.No.6264 of 2020 dated 21/10/2011], Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in ACIT v. Pasricha (20 SOT 468) and Bombay Housing Corporation v. ACIT (81 ITD 545) have also held that the assessees were entitled to exemption u/s 54EC though they had made investments in the specified securities out of money taken on overdraft. Respectfully following the said decisions, I hold that the appellant is entitled to the deduction u/s S4EC claimed by it in respect…

ACIT v. Dr. P.S. Pasricha (20 SOT 468) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax