Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (259 ITR 724)

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

…is not entitled to claimed deduction u/s 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 constructi…

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

…is not entitled to claimed deduction u/s 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 constructi…

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

…of 32 Sewa Sahakari Sammittee Maryadit Beed 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 constructi…

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

…is not entitled to claimed deduction u/s 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 constructi…

JYTSNA SUNDERLAL SHROFF,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 25 , MUMBAI

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

ITA 216/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A. Mohan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…ace on the date of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents as held in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Vishnu Trading & Investment Co. (2003) 259 ITR 724 (Raj). In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), it is held that the Commissioner has to be satisfied with the twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of the conditions is absent- if the order of the Ass…

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

…is not entitled to claimed deduction u/s 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 constructi…

SANTOSH RAJU SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-21, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1757/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, CIT(DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…documents and not on the date of registration of documents. In this regard, we rely on the decision in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v Vishnu Trading & Investment Co. (2003) 259 ITR 724 (Raj). In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, the assessee had purchased a plot of land vide agreement of sale dated 23.11.2006 along with others for a total consideration of Rs.29,00,000/- which was registered on 23.11.2006, by paying full stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.1,45,000/- and Rs. 29,480/- respectively. The said property…

THE DCIT-3(1), INDORE vs. KUMARI SHEETAL GARG, INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1& 2 of the

ITA 254/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Dcit-3(1), Kumari Sheetal Garg, Indore Vs. 8/2, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Afhpg9179G Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ca Date Of Hearing 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 53ASection 54F

…ave taken possession of We property. In the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in CIT Vs. Ved Parkash and Sons (HUF) [1994J 207 ITR 148, the decisions or the Rajasthan High Court reported in CIT Vs. Vishnu Trading and Investment Co. [2003] 259 ITR 724 and CIT Vs. Rajasthan Mirror Manufacturing CO. [2003J 260 ITR 503 as well as the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in M. Syamala Rao Vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 140, it is held that the capital gain arising on the transfer of capital assets has to be worked out from the date of the agreement under which the assessee was put in possess…

KAMAL KISHORE SINGHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 813/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kamal Kishore Singhi Asstt. Commissioner Of 10/161, Kamal Park Income Tax-26(1) K.G. Vs. Building, V.S. Marg, Mahim, Mittal Hospital Bldg., Mumbai-400016. 6Th Floor, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400002 Pan No. Aadps3820K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hari S. Raheja, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kamal Kishore Singhi Asstt. Commissioner of 10/161, Kamal Park Income Tax-26(1) K.G. Vs. Building, V.S. Marg, Mahim, Mittal Hospital Bldg., Mumbai-400016. 6th floor, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400002 PAN No. AADPS3820K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Hari S. Raheja, AR Revenue by : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 30/08/2018 Date of pronouncement : 28/09/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the as…

TINA KAPOOR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5663/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ms. Tina Kapoor Ito-26(2)(1) Flat No. 4, Sanghi House, 94, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Nepean Sea Road, Road Mumbai-400006 Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aelpk9444F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Justin, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54

…te of execution of documents and not on the date of registration of documents. It has been held so in Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Vishnu Trading & Investment Co. (2003) 259 ITR 724 (Raj). We find that in the instant case the date of registration and payment of stamp duty in respect of Flat 2902 at RNA Mirage, Worli, Mumbai is 27.02.2007. The sale agreement is 10.03.2011. The date of registration and payment of stamp duty in the case of Flat 404 at Sterling Whitefields, Hyderabad is 29.03.2007. The sale agreement is 14.03.20…

Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC), CIT v. Podar Cements Pvt. Ltd.