ACIT v. Smt. Sunder Kaur Sujan Singh Gadh

3 SOT 206Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#8567 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 139 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 250 Section 45 Section 54

Issues it is cited on

date of transfer section 54 transfer prescribed total income

Judgments citing ACIT v. Smt. Sunder Kaur Sujan Singh Gadh

SHEELA RAMCHAND UTTAMCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3398/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3398/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2016–17) Sheela Ramchand Uttamchandani C-1006, Oberoi Woods, Off Aarey Road, ……………. Appellant Goregaon, (East), Mumbai-400063 PAN – AANPU6748G v/s Income Tax Officer-30(2)(3) Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla ……………. Respondent Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Assessee by :Shri Dharmesh Shah Ms Mitali Parekh Revenue by :Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date of Hearing – 22/02/2024 Date of Order – 21/05/2024 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SIN…

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

…Therefore, confining to two years' period for construction and handing over possession thereof is impossible and unworkable under section 54 of the Act. (p. 108) 2.2.3 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(3) Smt. Sunder Kaur Sujan Singh Gadh [2005]3 SOT 206 (Mumbai) HELD: “For qualifying investment for construction under section 54F is the crucial date is the date of allotment of the flat by DDA and payment of installments was only a follow-up action and taking possession of the flat is only a formality, of course, installments have to be paid by the allottee as per the schedule fixed by the DDA. The…

SONAL ASHISH SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(3)(3) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 2855/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2855/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sonal Ashish Soni बिधम/ Ito, Ward-30(3)(3) C/Om/S Shyam Jewellers Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Shot No. 2-3-4, Guru Nanak C-13, Bandra Kurla Shopping Centre, Shankar Complex, Bandra (E), Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asgps9276A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming Addition Of Rs.7,78,104/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.31,12,145/- Made By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary & Income From House Property & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60,680/- On 28.03.2017 For Ay. 2016-17. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Jointly With Her Family Member For A Value Of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. However, He Noted From The Purchase Agreement That The Circle Rate/

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta

Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…suance of allotment letter and the payment of installments is only a follow of action and taking the delivery of possession is only a formality.” The case of the assessee is further fortified by the ratio laid down in ACIT vs Smt. Sundar Kaur Sujan Singh Gad (3 SOT 206), ACIT vs Smt. Vandana Rana Roy (ITA No.6173/mum/2011) order dated 07/11/2012, holding date of allotment is the relevant date for computing capital gains, Jeetendra Mohan vs ITO (2007) 11 SOT 594 (Del.), Jagmohan Singh Rawat vs ITO (ITA No.3297/Del./2011) order dated 29/02/2012, thus, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the ld. Commissioner o…

PRADEEP KUMAR SONTHALIA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CC-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

ITA 1209/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 234ASection 53ASection 54

…efore, entitled for deduction u/s.54 with reference to date of booking. (i) Kishor H. Galaiya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2)(3) [2012) 24 taxmann.com 11 (Mumbai) (ii) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(3) vs. Smt. Sunder Kaur Sujan Gadh (2005) 3 SOT 206 (Mumbai). (iii) Sri Ved Prakash Rakhra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1), Bangalore (ITAT). (iv) Mrs. Jyoti Arun Kothari Vs. ITO [(TS-737-ITAT-2013 (Mumbai)) (v) CIT vs. Smt. Brinda Kumari (2001) 114 Taxmann 266 (Del.) (vi) CIT vs. Kuldeep Singh (2014) 49 taxmann.com 167 (Del.) (vii) Farida A Dungurpurwala vs. ITO (2014) 52 taxm…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-24(1), MUMBAI vs. BHAVESH SURENDRA SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 998/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.998/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ Bhavesh Surendra Shah Room No.601, Piramal 34/P, Laxmi Industrial Vs. Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Estate, New Link Road, Lane, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri-W, Mumbai- Mumbai-400012. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps0265M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Dalpat Shah Revenue By: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 12.03.2022 For Ay. 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Deduction U/S 54(1) Of Rs.2,29,33,659/- Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction U/S 54(1) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Provided The Assessee Invests In A New Capital Asset Within A Period Of One Year Before Or Two Years After The Date Transfer Of Old House, The Taxpayer Should Acquire Another Residential House Or Should Construct A Residential House Within A Period Of Three Years From The Date Of Transfer Of The Old House.

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)

Section 54Section 54(1)

…essee. For that proposition the following decisions was brought to our notice: (i) CIT v Mrs. Hilla J B Wadia 69 Taxman 114 (Bom) 7 A.Y. 2018-19 Bhavesh Surendra Shah (ii) Mustnsir I Tehsildar v ITO 168 ITD 523 (Mum) (iii) CIT v Smt. Sundar Kaur Sujan Singh 3 SOT 206 (Mum) (iv) Kishor H Galaiya v ITO 137 ITD 229 (Mum) Thus, we note that in this case, the condition provided u/s 54 (1) regarding construction of a new house that it should be completed within three years from date of transfer of old house, have been fulfilled; and further we note that there is no bar provided for disallowance of cost of constructio…

C.R.PARTHIBAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee it is dismissed

ITA 1023/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1023/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopalakrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 47Section 54

…to enter into joint development agreement, by which I agreed to transfer 25% of the undivided share in the land (“the new property”). In Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Sunder Kaur Sujan Singh Gadh (2006) 9 (II) ITCL 496 (Mum ‘H’-Trib) : (2005) 3 SOT 206 (Mum-Trib), it was held that where the Assessee got constructed residential property through builder, then in view of the CBDT Circular Nos.471, Dated 15.01.1986 and 672 dated 16.12.1993. It was a case of construction of residential flat and not purchase of residential flat and as the Assessee had fulfilled all the conditions precedent, he was enti…

KUSUMLATA SONTHALIA ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1151/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri RadheyShyam, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) KusumlataSonthalia Vs. PCIT, Central-1, Kolkata 34, Pankaj Mallick Sarani, Jayantika Apartment, 1st floor, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABBPA 8446 Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by :None Respondent by :Shri RadheyShyam, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 28/02/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 17/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the…

ALEXANDE ZACHARIAH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 805/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 10.07.2019

Section 144ASection 54Section 54(1)Section 54o

…on 24.12.2011 b) Prior period benefit U/s.54of the Act, cannot be availed in case of construction i.e., available only in the case of purchase. He further relied on the decisions of the Mumbai ITAT in the cases of ACIT vs. Sunder Kaur Sujan Singh in [2005] 3 SOT 206 & Farida A. Dunderpurwala vs. ITO [2015] 67 SOT 208. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee is on appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee felt that instead of selling the residential house wherein he was residing and…

SANJEEV SINHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1131/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1131/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 143(3)Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1131/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Mr. Sanjeev Sinha, ITO 21(3)(2) 1303, Hiral Splender, Near Mumbai Diamond Estate, Ketki Pada, v. Dahisar (E) Mumbai 400068 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AACPS0959G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Tarun Ghia Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 27.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.…

ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. BHAVNA Y SANGHAVI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-8(3)-1, Smt. Bhavna Y. Sanghavi, Room No.201, 2Nd Floor, A-38, Nandjyot Industrial बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Estate, Kurla Andheri Vs. Mumbai-400020 Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aapps4898H

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 54

…or the purposes of section 54 and 54F of the Act. It is also noted that while coming to a particular conclusion, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has relied upon the decision from Bombay Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Sunder Kaur Sajjan Singh Gadh 3 SOT 206, wherein, the Board Circular has been discussed. No contrary decision was brought to our notice by the Revenue. 5 Smt. Bhavna Y. Sanghavi ITA Nos.2286/Mum/2014 3. Before adverting further, we are reproducing hereunder section 54 of the Act for ready reference and analysis:- “ 54. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the ca…

DCIT 28(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAGHUNATH B KATHURIA, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 277/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 54

…of the appellant and CBDT circular no.672 dated 16.12.1933, relied upon by the appellant on the ground that the same is applicable to specified authorities. In this regard, the reliance is to be placed on the case of Srnt. Sunder Kaur Sujan Singh Gadh (2005) 3 SOT 206, Mumbai Bench of Tribunal, wherein it was held that the builder would fail in the /category of other institutions and, therefore, booking of the flat with the builder has to be treated as construction of flat by the assessee. 2.6 I have gone through the assessment order & the submission made appellant in this regard. It is not in dispute that the a…

ITO 7(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAJIV BHOLANATH GUPTA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-7(2)(1), Shri Rajiv Bholanath Gupta, Room No.621A, 6Th Floor, 1103, Raheja Acropolis, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Atlantic Deonar Chembur, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400088 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabpg9848F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Jignes Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr

Section 54

…ins of Rs.74,77,895/- and disallowing claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee, defended the order of the First Appellate Authority by placing reliance upon the decision in Smt. Sundar Kaur Sujan Sing Gadh (205) 3 SOT 206 (Mum.) order dated 27/02/2005, Purshottam Govind Bhai vs ITO (1985) 13 ITD 939 (Bom.), CIT vs Beena K. Jain (1994) 75 taxman 145 (Bom.), Vinod Kumar Jain vs CIT (2010) 195 taxman 174 (P & H) and CIT vs R. L. Sood (2000) 245 ITR 227 (Del.). 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in bri…

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. VEMBU VAIDYANATHAN, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5749/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

Section 4(1)