Aryama Sundaram v. CIT

407 ITR 1High Court2018#6202 most cited

What is Aryama Sundaram v. CIT authority for?

Cost of land purchased prior to the sale of a capital asset, on which a new property is constructed, is eligible for exemption under Section 54(1). The same money received from the sale of the old property need not be used for acquisition of the new property.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Aryama Sundaram v. CIT · section 54(1) · section 54F · cost of land · cost of construction · exemption · date of transfer · new residential house · capital gains exemption

Also reported as

97 Taxmann.com 74

Sections most often in play

Section 54FSection 148Section 54Section 143(3)Section 147Section 45Section 144Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)date of transfersection 54fsection 54section 45long term capital gaintransferprevious yearprescribeddocumentindiasection 143

Judgments citing Aryama Sundaram v. CIT

ROMABEN KEYUR THAKORE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE ANANDIBEN JITENDRABHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2605/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer By Observing As Follows:

Section 144Section 148Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No: 2605/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Romaben Keyur Thakore The DCIT, Legal heir of Late Anandiben Circle-1(1)(1), Jitendrabhai Shah, Vs Vadodara. 11/A Saimy Society, Subhanpura, Vadodara-390023. PAN: AFOPS8299C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Prashant Upadhyay, AR Revenue Represented: Shri Abhijit, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 05.03.2026 Date of pronouncement : 10.03.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appea…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ANIL REDDY YEDUGURY SANDHINTI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

ITA 2145/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2145/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & Cross-Objection NO.79/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 v. The ACIT, Shri Anil Reddy Yeduguri – Non Corporate Circle-3(1), Sandhinti, Chennai. No.18/20A, Marra Gate Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. [PAN: ABJPA 0351 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross- Object…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE SUBRAMANIAN SARAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Re

ITA 1132/CHNY/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 54F

…Madras High Court in Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of C. Aryama Sundaram v. CIT reported in [2018] 97 the case of C. Aryama Sundaram v. CIT reported in [2018] 97 the case of C. Aryama Sundaram v. CIT reported in [2018] 97 taxmann.com 74/258 Taxman 10/407 ITR 1 [Mad 8 Taxman 10/407 ITR 1 [Mad-HC]. ITA & CO No. 18/Chny/2024 CO No. 18/Chny/2024(AY 2015-16) Vellore Subramanian Saravanan Vellore Subramanian Saravanan :: 5 :: 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld.CIT(…

SHRIRAM NARAYAN TIKDE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX, WARD 4(4) , NAGPUR

ITA 89/NAG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 68

…paperbook).  Though construction was started before the sale deed of long-term capital assets (shanti nagar) but it is from advance consideration received from such transfer. Reliance is placed on C. Aryama Sundaram v. Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Chennai (407 ITR 1) (Madras HC).  Plot is separate from his uncle namely Bhagwan Tidke as separate sale deed i,e .executed having separate corporation tax receipt, Electric bill.  Combined map was only for convenience purpose because Plot size is only 2400 sq ft & splitting of plot is not allowed as per NIT rules & regulation. 7 Shriram Narayan Tidke ITA no.89/Nag…

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

ITA 324/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2013-14 Shri Jignesh Jaysukhlal The DCIT, Ghiya, Circle-4(2), E-301, Nilamber Vs Vadodara Bellissimo, Bhaili-Vasana Road, Vadodra-391410 PAN: ACDPG8833E (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Hishikes Hement Patki, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 09-05-2024 Date of pronouncement : 07-08-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-…

SHRI VELAYUTHAM SURYA NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 15 (5),, CHENNAI

ITA 3284/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3284/Chny/2019 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Velayutham Surya Narayanan Ito बनाम/ L 1201/39, 29Th Cross Street, Non-Corporate Ward-15(5) Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur Extn. Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 041. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Apfps-6907-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…disallowance of claim for tax exemption/deduction u/s 54F of the Act was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 7. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case reported in 407 ITR 1 would fortify the stand of the Appellant thereby vitiating the related findings at Para 6.5 of the impugned order. 8. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is nullity in law. As is evident, the sole iss…

JCIT (OSD),CIRCLE-17(1), MUMBAI vs. NAFISA ASGAR MUN, MUMBAI

ITA 443/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. A.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner of Ms. Nafisa Asgar Mun, Income Tax-17(1), 1204, Sagar Classic Clare 1st Floor, Room No.117, Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Byculla-400 008 G-Block, Bandra Kurla PAN: AAFPM9597D Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. A.R. Date of Hearing : 24 . 05 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28 . 06 . 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuld…

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1955/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA
Section 54F

…ourt in case of CIT vs. K.Ramachandra Rao reported in (2015) 277 CTR 522 iii) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Subramanya Bhat reported in (1987) 165 ITR 571 iv) Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of C. Aryama Sundaram vs. CIT reported in [2018] 407 ITR 1. 4. On the contrary, the Ld.Sr.DR submitted that assessee has claimed u/s. 54F toward purchase of land 4 years prior to sale of original asset along with cost of construction of residential house. He also submitted that the disallowance is justified as assessee is co-owner of the said new asset along with her husband. The Ld.Sr.DR vehemently suppor…

ANIRUDDH RINKI GANDHI,BARODA vs. DCIT (INTL. TAXN), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 321/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Aniruddhrinki Gandhi Dcit (Intl.Taxn.) 14, Vaikunh Apartment Vs Baroda. Laxminarayan Co-Op. Society Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Bbnpg 1052 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 13/Intl.Taxn./Ahd/75/2017-18 Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Assessee’S Grounds Of Appeal Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 54

…that no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration. Accordingly, the tax case appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed." And (ii) in the case of C.Aryama Sundaram v. CIT [2018] 97 taxmann.com 74/258 Taxman 10/407 ITR 1 wherein one of the substantial questions of law framed for consideration was when capital gain arises from sale of building and/or land appurtenant thereto and a residential house is constructed within three years from the date of such sale, whether the cost of the new asset, which is eligible for set-off against capital gain, would include the cos…

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR

ITA/11/2020HC Himachal Pradesh27 Dec 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Justice Sabina & Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya Income Tax Appeal No. 11 Of 2020 Between:- Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla. ….Appellant (By Sh. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate With Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate)

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 54

…cquiring residential flat and the said cheque was cleared by the bank on 29.09.2008 i.e. before the last date for filing of income tax return i.e. 30.09.2008. Relying upon paragraph 22 of the judgment of Madras High Court in C. Aryama Sundaram vs. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 1 (Mad), the ITAT held that merely because 5 the amount received by the respondent/assessee from the sale of flat was lying in deposit with Canara Bank by way of FDR and the amount invested for purchase of new flat by the respondent/assessee was from another account maintained by him with ICICI bank cannot be a justifiable ground to deny th…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI. SANDEEP BHUJANGA SHETTY, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1068/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT – DRFor Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, C A
Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 1068/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 Asst. Commissioner of Shri. Sandeep Bhujanga Income Tax, Shetty, Circle – 6(3) (1), No – B, SNS Chambers, Room No. 438, 4th Floor, Vs. 274, Sankey Road, BMTC Building, Sadashivanagar, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 080. Bengaluru – 560 095. PAN NO : AACPS 9801 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT & ITA 1070/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 Shri. Sandeep B Shetty, Asst. Commissioner of No – 13, SNS Chambers, Income Tax, 274, Sankey Ro…

NATTA SURYA RAO,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 404/VIZ/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.404/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Natta Suryarao Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Late Manganna Ward-1 D.No.2-20-5 Tanuku Ambati Vari Street Old Town, Tanuku [Pan :Ahrpn 9648M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri.Y.Ratnakar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri.Y.Ratnakar, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR
Section 148Section 45(2)Section 54F

…rt of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. H.K.Kapoor reported in 234 ITR 753, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Bharati Mishra [2014] 41 taxmann.com 50 and the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of C.Aryama Sundaram Vs. CIT [2018] 407 ITR 1 (Mad.) and various other decisions. 7. Per contra, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the short questions involved are (i) whether the sale of plots by the assessee is business income or ‘capital gains’ (ii) (ii) whet…

KESHAV DUTT SHREEDHAR,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/CHANDI/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vishal MohanFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 54

…tent on which exemption u/s 54 is sought to be claimed ought to be invested in the acquisition of the specific asset within the stipulated time. It would be appropriate here to support our conclusion by making a reference to C. Aryama Sundaram Vs CIT (2018) 407 ITR 1 (Mad). The Court considering the require ments of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act held as under : “22. It is axiomatic that Section 54(1) of the said Act does not contemplate that the same money received from the sale of a residential house should be used in the acquisition of new residential house. Had it been the intention of the Legislature tha…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद$य के सम% "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.805/CHNY/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Shri Alexander Zachariah, Deputy Commissioner of Advika, 2nd Floor, Income Tax, No.7, Subbarao Avenue, Corporate Circle – 5(2), Nungambakkam, Chennai Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AADPA0897J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri S. Sridhar,…

VARUN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-47(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1388/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Akarsh Garg, Advocate, CA
Section 54

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Shri Varun Seth ACIT 1, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Cir-47(1) Vs. New Delhi-110 054. New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Akarsh Garg, Advocate, CA Shri Karan Kumar, CA Assessee by : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26/02/2019 Date of 14/05/2019 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 15.01.2019, passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)- 16, New Delhi,…

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 54Section 54F

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. DCIT, C/o. IPSAA House ANM & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon PAN: AACPA2412L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv Revenue by: Smt Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/03/2019 Date of pronouncement 30/04/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, individual against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Gu…

SHRI.PARSWANATH PADMARAJAIAH JAIN ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 453/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T.A No.453/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri. Parswanath Padmarajaiah Jain, 9Th Main, Koramangala 3Rd Block, Bengaluru 560 034 .. Appellant Pan : Aehpp3827M V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ganesh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. Cit Heard On : 13.12.2018 Pronounced On : 21.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ganesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT
Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…ITA.453/Bang/2018 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'A', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.453/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri. Parswanath Padmarajaiah Jain, 9th Main, Koramangala 3rd Block, Bengaluru 560 034 .. Appellant PAN : AEHPP3827M v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. S. Ganesh, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT Heard on : 13.12.2018 Pronounced on : 21.12.2018 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :…

M.B.VENKATESH,CHENNAI vs. ITO COMPANY WARD II(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 668/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.668/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ / एस एम सी "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B / SMC BENCH, CHENNAI "ीएन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"या"यकसद"य एवं "ी एसजयरामन,लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.668/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri M.B. Venkatesh, 3-B, Lavanya, The Income Tax Officer, 12, IV Seaward Road, v. Company Ward – II(1), Valmiki Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai. Chennai - 600 041. PAN : AABPV 9529 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA Shri S…

ASHOK HARRIS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1004/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1004/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ashok Harris, The Deputy Commissioner Of #8, 1St Cross Street, Vs. Income Tax, Seethammal Extension, Salary Circle Iv, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabph3056N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Vijay Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai, Dated 11.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Passing The Order Disallowing The Deduction U/S 54F Claimed By The Appellant In The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Amounting To A Sum Of Rs.52,70,514. 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 54F

…wall, sump etc., amounting to a sum of ₹.20,58,712/- cannot be held as eligible for claiming deduction from the capital gains earned. 10. We have also perused the case law relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of C. Aryama Sundaram v. CIT 407 ITR 1 (Mad) as well as M.K. Kuppuraj (HUF) v. CIT 257 ITR 718 and find that both the case law have no application to the facts of the present case because, both the case law relates to residential house and not relating to any other construction as was done by the assessee. 11. Since the assessee did not construct the residential house as stipulated und…

Aryama Sundaram v. CIT (407 ITR 1) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax