ACIT v. Shri Jagtar Singh Chawla

87 DTR 217High Court2013#25772 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 48Section 54
Read the full judgment

Judgments citing ACIT v. Shri Jagtar Singh Chawla

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

….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 period of due date for filing the return in certain circumstances and, therefore, exemption under s…

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

….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 period of due date for filing the return in certain circumstances and, therefore, exemption under s…

Goverdhan Sigh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 517/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244ASection 54F

…apital gain tax. Further, the assessee has invested Rs.2 crores in the purchase of the new house by 23.04.2008……” Though the Revenue challenged that same before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in ACIT vs Shri Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 259 CTR 388/ 87 DTR 217 (P&H), but this particular aspect was not at all challenged and therefore, has become final. 10 Shri Goverdhan Singh Shekhawat vs. ITO Jagan Nath Singh Lodha v/s ITO (2004) 85 TTJ 173 (Jd) wherein it was held as under: “Capital gains—Exemption under s. 54F—Non deposit of gains in the Capital Gains Account Scheme—Assessee selling his plot on 4th…

ACIT v. Shri Jagtar Singh Chawla (87 DTR 217) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax