Additional CIT v. Narendra Mohan Unyal

34 SOT 152Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#9698 most cited

What is Additional CIT v. Narendra Mohan Unyal authority for?

Section 54F exemption for capital gains is allowable for investment in the construction of a residential house, even if the land appurtenant to the building is agricultural in nature, as there is no specific rider against it.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Narendra Mohan Unyal · 34 SOT 152 · Section 54F · capital gains exemption · residential house · agricultural land · appurtenant land · investment in construction

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirysection 263(1)lack of enquirysection 54fmalabar industrialcreditworthiness of the creditorsection 54section 119sundry creditorslimited scrutinynon-application of minddisallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing Additional CIT v. Narendra Mohan Unyal

M/S Rockbed Renovators Ltd., Bhopal vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 196CSection 263

…54F. As per our considered view, benefit of Section 54F cannot be denied on the ground that land on which construction done was agriculture in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgements in case of Vishnu Trading Co. 259 ITR 724 (Raj.), Narendra Mohan Uniyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.), Shyam Sunder Mukhija Vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 (JPR) and ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (2012) 53 SOT 158 (JPR). In the case of Narendra Mohan Uniyal (Supra) it is held that "It is crystal clear from the plain reading of ss. 54 and 54F that exemption is allowable in respect of amount invested in the construction of a residential house. There is no any…

M/S. S.R. Ferro Alloys, Jhabua vs. The PCIT, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 148/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263

…54F. As per our considered view, benefit of Section 54F cannot be denied on the ground that land on which construction done was agriculture in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgements in case of Vishnu Trading Co. 259 ITR 724 (Raj.), Narendra Mohan Uniyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.), Shyam Sunder Mukhija Vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 (JPR) and ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (2012) 53 SOT 158 (JPR). In the case of Narendra Mohan Uniyal (Supra) it is held that "It is crystal clear from the plain reading of ss. 54 and 54F that exemption is allowable in respect of amount invested in the construction of a residential house. There is no any…

Sewa Sahkari Sammittee Maryadit, Beed, Mundi Khandwa vs. PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

…d Page 29 of 32 considered view, benefit of Section 54F cannot be denied on the ground that land on which construction done was agriculture in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgements in case of Vishnu Trading Co. 259 ITR 724 (Raj.), Narendra Mohan Uniyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.), Shyam Sunder Mukhija Vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 (JPR) and ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (2012) 53 SOT 158 (JPR). In the case of Narendra Mohan Uniyal (Supra) it is held that "It is crystal clear from the plain reading of ss. 54 and 54F that exemption is allowable in respect of amount invested in the construction of a residential house. There is no any…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…of being 'habitable' 4. That as per section 54F, no where it is necessary that investment for house is to be made on non-agriculture land. It is stated that even farm house is considered as residential house. In Additional CIT vs. Narendra Mohan Unyal (2009) 34 SOT 152 (Del). it is held that there is no rider that no deduction would be allowed in respect of investment of sale proceed on acquisition of building and land appurtenant. What is necessary is that it should be capable of being used for habitation of people. It is not necessary that the assessee himself should reside in the house to call it a residentia…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…of being 'habitable' 4. That as per section 54F, no where it is necessary that investment for house is to be made on non-agriculture land. It is stated that even farm house is considered as residential house. In Additional CIT vs. Narendra Mohan Unyal (2009) 34 SOT 152 (Del). it is held that there is no rider that no deduction would be allowed in respect of investment of sale proceed on acquisition of building and land appurtenant. What is necessary is that it should be capable of being used for habitation of people. It is not necessary that the assessee himself should reside in the house to call it a residentia…

Maa Narmada Agrotech and Infrastures Ltd, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 117/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…54F. As per our considered view, benefit of Section 54F cannot be denied on the ground that land on which construction done was agriculture in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgements in case of Vishnu Trading Co. 259 ITR 724 (Raj.), Narendra Mohan Uniyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.), Shyam Sunder Mukhija Vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 (JPR) and ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (2012) 53 SOT 158 (JPR). In the case of Narendra Mohan Uniyal (Supra) it is held that "It is crystal clear from the plain reading of ss. 54 and 54F that exemption is allowable in respect of amount invested in the construction of a residential house. There is no any…

Smt. Lata Phulwani, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Amrish Bedi (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 54F

…54F. As per our considered view, benefit of Section 54F cannot be denied on the ground that land on which construction done was agriculture in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgements in case of Vishnu Trading Co. 259 ITR 724 (Raj.), Narendra Mohan Uniyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.), Shyam Sunder Mukhija Vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 (JPR) and ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (2012) 53 SOT 158 (JPR). In the case of Narendra Mohan Uniyal (Supra) it is held that "It is crystal clear from the plain reading of ss. 54 and 54F that exemption is allowable in respect of amount invested in the construction of a residential house. There is no any…

Smt. Nirmala Goyal, Ajmer vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 920/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Nikhalesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala (JCIT)
Section 154Section 154(2)Section 154(7)Section 155Section 54F

…ace purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, found that assessee has purchased a plot of land and has constructed a house on the same, then taking into consideration the case of Narendra. Mohan Uniyal, 34 SOT 152 (Del.) and taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Vishnu Trading & Investment Co. (supra) and also the decision in case of Shyam Sunder Makhija (supra) found that assessee is eligible for exemption under section 54F. The AO's contention was that land purchased by assessee was agricultural land and, moreov…

ITO, W-4, Panchkula vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi, Panchkula

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

For Appellant: Shri. A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…unit is to be considered for the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act. It is not necessary the residential unit is to be constructed on the whole land. The same view was held by the Hon'ble Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT vs Narendra Mohan Uniyal, 34 SOT 152 . The finding of the said case law is as follows: "It is crystal clear from plain reading of sections 54 and 54F that exemption is allowable in respect of amount invested in the construction of a residential house. There is not any rider under section 54F that no deduction would be allowed in respect of investment of capital gains made on acquisit…

Smt. Manishaben Rakeshbhai Naik, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 886/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.886/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Manishaben Rakeshbhai Vs. The Income Tax Naik, Officer, 26-B, Alka Society, Ward-3, Navsari. Chhapara Road, Navsari, Pan: Acjpn 5740 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 08-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 19-06-2018

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…g land appurtenant to the constructed house i.e. new asset. Therefore, the plot bearing no. 16 and 17 are nothing but a land appurtenant to the building constructed on the first floor. Therefore, by placing reliance in the case of ACIT vs. N. M. Uniyal [2009] 34 SOT 152 (Delhi-Tribunal), the ld.Counsel contended that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction u/s.54F of the Act in respect of land appurtenant to the construction of residential house. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of N.M.Uniyal had followed the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunita Agarwal [20…

Rupali Jatin, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 1636/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: 25.04.2017
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54F

…Asha George vs. ITO, Thrissur, in IT Appeal No.114 of 2012, vide order dated 16.01.2013. The Ld.CIT(A) also distinguished the cases relied by the assessee viz., 1. ACIT vs. Omprakash Goyal, IT Appeal no.647(JP) of 2011 2. ACIT vs. Narendra Mohan Uniyal (2009) 34 SOT 152 (Delhi) and held that these decisions does not be apply to the case of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is on appeal before us. 7. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had purchased one residential plot and constructed a residential house of 409 sq.ft., which she could only afford. He further argued stating t…