Arun K Thaigrajan v. Commissioner

427 ITR 190High Court2020#14573 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54esection 55asection 54ecsection 13(2)long-term capital assetsection 53asection 53circle ratewithin four yearsfresh tangible materialsection 55

Judgments citing Arun K Thaigrajan v. Commissioner

VALMIK THAPAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 18

Appeal is allowed and the additions made by the AO in the

ITA/182/2021HC Delhi25 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 54Section 54E

…ITA No.182/2021 Page 1 of 17 $~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 25.03.2025 + ITA 182/2021 VALMIK THAPAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Madhur Aggarwal, Mr. Uma Shankar & Mr. Mahir Aggarwal, Advs. Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 18.....Respondent Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, Ms. Zehra Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Mr. Kanishk, Ms. Nivedita, Ms. Anavntta & Ms. Yashika, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA V…

THAJUNNISSA BEGUM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD -10(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 196/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 196/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Thajunnissa Begum, Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Prasanna Vinayagar V. Non Corporate Ward -10(4), Kovil St., Chennai. 235, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Adcpt-2186-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 54

…ctional High Court of Madras in the case of G. Chinnadurai vs ITO [2016] 74 Taxmann.com 227 (Mad). The :-10-: ITA. No:196/Chny/2022 assessee had also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Arun K. Thiagarajan vs CIT [2020] 427 ITR 190 (Kar). 10. The Ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that, the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, because the original asset sold by the assessee is not a residential house property. Further, the assessee is also not entitled for exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, because new house purchased b…

NINA LUTHRA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3861/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Nina Luthra, F No 20, Sector-37, Vs. Ito, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Ward-1(2), Pan: Actpl6023F Noida (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 69

…le Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153, Hon‟ble Madras High Court in Tilokchand and Sons v. ITO (2019) 413 ITR 189 / 308 CTR 364/ 263 Taxman 713/ 177 DTR 165(Mad) (HC), Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in Arun K. Thiagarajan v. CIT(Appeals) (2020) 427 ITR 190 /193 DTR 153/ 272 Taxman 235 (Karn)(HC) and CIT Vs. Rukmaniamma 331 ITR 211. The ld DR submitted that investment in two units is not permissible and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been distinguished by the ld AO. 12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. We find that the assessee has purchased two adjacent units of…

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…ent, the Income Tax Authorities were not justified in denying the benefit of deduction u/s 54F of the I.T.Act. In this context, the learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Arun K Thiagarajan v. CIT reported in 427 ITR 190. 6. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) had denied the benefit of section 54F of the I.T.Act solely for the reason that the assessee had constructed multiple residential houses and not a si…

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…h respect to the ground number two of investment into house property eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the income tax act. He relied on the decision of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of around in Arun K Thaigrajan versus Commissioner of income tax 427 ITR 190 wherein it has been held that for the purpose of allowing benefit of deduction u/s 54 (1) the expression residential house includes within its ambit numbers as well and it cannot be construed as one residential house only. He therefore submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Arguments of Revenue on Merits of Addition/…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…h respect to the ground number two of investment into house property eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the income tax act. He relied on the decision of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of around in Arun K Thaigrajan versus Commissioner of income tax 427 ITR 190 wherein it has been held that for the purpose of allowing benefit of deduction u/s 54 (1) the expression residential house includes within its ambit numbers as well and it cannot be construed as one residential house only. He therefore submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Arguments of Revenue on Merits of Addition/…

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…h respect to the ground number two of investment into house property eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the income tax act. He relied on the decision of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of around in Arun K Thaigrajan versus Commissioner of income tax 427 ITR 190 wherein it has been held that for the purpose of allowing benefit of deduction u/s 54 (1) the expression residential house includes within its ambit numbers as well and it cannot be construed as one residential house only. He therefore submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Arguments of Revenue on Merits of Addition/…