How many judgments cite Balraj v. CIT?

42 judgments on BharatTax cite Balraj v. CIT (254 ITR 22), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Balraj v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54, Section 54F, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 2(47).

Balraj v. CIT

254 ITR 22High Court2002#2828 most cited

What is Balraj v. CIT authority for?

For claiming capital gains exemption under sections 54 and 54F, it is not mandatory for the assessee to obtain a registered sale deed; mere investment in the new property and taking possession suffice.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Balraj v. CIT · 254 ITR 22 · Section 54 exemption · Section 54F exemption · registered deed · ownership of property · capital gains relief · Section 17 Registration Act · investment in new property · possession of property · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

123 Taxmann 290

Sections most often in play

Section 54 Section 54F Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 2(47)Section 142(1)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 53a section 53 section 54f section 2(47)section 54 inadequate enquiry date of transfer section 54b section 17 lack of enquiry section 263(1)

Judgments citing Balraj v. CIT

Vinay Chaudhary, Pitampura vs. ACIT Int Tax 1(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3115/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 54Section 54FSection 69A

…ence and submissions of the Appellant. 6. That the disallowance of Rs. 4,07,88,000/-claimed as deduction by the Appellant u/s. 54F of the Act on account of non-execution and/or non-registration of sale deed is contrary to settled law vide Balraj v. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 22 (Del) and CIT v. Kapil Nagpal (2016) 381 ITR 351 (Del). 7. That the legally unsustainable impugned addition of Rs. 4,14,06,000/-u/s. 69A of the Act vide impugned assessment order u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Act is an unlawful ground for consequential disallowance of deduction of Rs. 4,07,88,000/- u/s. 54F of the Act as claimed by the Appellant. 8.…

ITO Ward-53(3), New Delhi vs. Anju Madhan, New Delhi

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

ITA 9321/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53ASection 54

…ITA No. 9321/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.9321 /Del./2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Income Tax Officer Vs. Anju Madhan Ward-53(3), E-108, Malcha Marg, New Delhi Diplomatic Enclave Chhanakya Puri, Delhi 110021 New Delhi PAN: AALPM2084K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri I.P.Bansal, Adv. Shri Vivek Bansal, Adv. Shri Vishal Chechi, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 13/03/2026 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM The Revenue has…

Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 1, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 548Section 54BSection 54B(1)Section 69A

…239/46 taxmann.com 300 (SC) 2. CIT. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/2 Tasman 541 (SC) 3. CIT. K. Jelani Basha [2002] 256 ITR 282/122 Taxman 509 (Mad) 4. CIT v. Ram Gopal (2015) 372 ITR 498/230 Taxman 205/55 taxmann.com 536 (Delhi) 5. Balraj V C77 [2002] 254 ITR 22/123 Tasman 290 (Delhi) 6. CIT. R.1. Sood (2000) 245 ITR 727/108 Tasman 227 (Delhi) 7. CIT v. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda, [1995] 211 ITR 804/78 Taxman 219 (Bom.) 8. CIT v. Shahajada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 311 (AP) 9. S. Dabir Singh, Jalandhar v. DIT [IT Appeal No. 27 (Asr.) of 2015] 8 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR had relied upon the f…

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sangeeta Nareshkumar Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenueis dismissed

ITA 3724/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Ito – 19(3)(1), Mumbai Sangeeta 405, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs Nareshkumar Mehta 1701 & 1702, 17Th Floor, Maharashtra - 400012. Aakashdeep, V.P. Road, Maharashtra – 400004. [Pan: Agbpm8012F] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 17Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54F

…In absence of execution of sale deed, there was no valid transfer of ownership and the assessee has not eligible for exemption under section 54F. The case law relied by ld. CIT(A) is distinguishable on the fact and reliance on such decision in Balraj vs CIT 254 ITR 22 (Delhi) is misplaced. To support his submission, the ld. Sr. DR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Haryana (2012) 340 ITR 1 (SC). The ld. Sr. DR submits that in the said decision Hon’ble Apex Court held that immovable property can be lawfully transfer only by way of registered de…

Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore, Mahalkshmipuram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Intl, Taxation 1(2) Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

…the symmetry is simple, the language is plain. Why mutilate the meaning by lexical legalism. We see no stress in the section on "cash and carry." ……….” 7.4 The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Balraj v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2002) 254 ITR 22 has held that the section 54 speaks of purchase only and for availing benefit under this section it is not necessary that the assessee should become the owner of property by evidencing the registration thereof. The relevant findings are reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience- “3. The Assessing Officer, the appellate authority as well…

Navjyoti Sharma, Bangalore vs. DCIT Asmnt, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Varadarajan D.P., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 45Section 54

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut vs. Prem Sapra, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 54

…property being House No. 267, Sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house". ➤ 417 ITR 547, KishorbhaiHarjibhai Patel vs. ITO (Gujarat H.C.) in which the above cited SC judgment in Sanjeev Lal has been followed. ➤ 254 ITR 22, Balraj vs. CIT (Delhi HC). Relevant findings of the High Court are reproduced at page 16 of PB and also reproduced below: "The Assessing Officer, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 on the ground that he did not become the owner of the property, as the said…

Anand Boddapaty, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 375/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 45Section 54Section 54F

…n should be allowed as held by various Courts including Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs., DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del.). and decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Spectra Shares & Scrips (P.) Ltd., vs., CIT 254 ITR 22 (AP) and decision of ITAT, Chennai in the case of Muthu Daniel Rajan vs., ACIT ITA.No.1675/Chny/ 2019. Therefore, he submitted that, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Further, the learned PCIT without bringing on record as to how the 9 ITA.No.375/Hyd./2025 asse…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(3), Delhi, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Dlehi vs. Rajni Gupta, Anand Vihar

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 199/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Rajni Gupta B-130, 2Nd Floor, Anand Ward- 58(3) Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110092 Pan No.Aatpg5940Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Ravi Pratap Mal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 27/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/05/2025 Order

Section 250Section 5Section 50Section 50CSection 541Section 54FSection 56Section 56(2)(x)

…in a new property need not to be evidenced with the registered deed and mere fact of investment having been made and possession taken of the property is sufficient to claim the said exemption. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held so in the case of Balraj Vs CIT 254 ITR 22 (Delhi), and the proposition reiterated by the coordinate benches of the ITAT in the following cases: i. Basheer Noorullah Khan, Bangalore vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ITA No.575/Bang/2019 dated 31-07-2019 ii. ACIT vs Sanjay Choudhary ITA No.1274/Del/2020 dated 23-01-2023 13. These facts have been established by the assessee before the…

Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 19/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ (Huf)308, Chhapania Street, 1(3)(6), Surat, Room No.303, 3Rd Vs. Adajan, Surat-395 009 Floor, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeha 1847 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 250Section 54F

…this, he relied on the decisions in cases of (i) CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad) (ii) CIT vs. Shahajada Begam 73 CTR 229 (AP), (iii) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan vs. DCIT 154 taxmann.com 102 (Surat- Trib.), (iv) CIT vs. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda 211 ITR 804 (Bom) and (v) Sanjeev Lal vs. CIT (2014) 46 taxmann.com 300 (SC). He submitted that all payments have been made and TDS was also deducted. Hence, conditions of Section 54F of the Act are fulfilled. 5. On the other hand, Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He stated that the only issue in the appeal is claims of ded…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 268/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Bksps2554L Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 04/Viz/2024 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Siva Jyothi Palam, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Bksps2554L Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

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

…to the assessee. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the decision of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC need not be disturbed as there is no infirmity in the order. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Balraj vs. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 22 (Delhi); the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar [2012] 345 ITR 389 (Karnataka) as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Suryakantham Seelam vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Visakhapatnam in ITA No. 563/Viz/2013, dated 18/08/2017. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material av…

Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Coimbatore vs. Acot, Ncc-5, Coimbatore

ITA 690/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.690/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Race Course, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641018, [Pan: Adjpp4946N] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-5, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2029-20/1026334108(1) Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), For The

For Appellant: Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142ASection 142A(1)Section 142A(6)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 250

…ds debt or for monetary consideration. That the issue of ownership and possession nowhere form part of the provision and concept of transfer is alien to it. 7. The CIT (Appeals) and AO failed to take note of judgment in CIT vs Dr.Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (1995 211 ITR 804 (Bom) wherein it was held that taking into consideration the letter as well as the spirit of section 54 of the Act and the word "towards" used before the word "purchase" in sub-section (2) of section 54, it is clear that the said word is not used in the sense of legal transfer and, therefore, the holding of a legal title within a period of one ye…

Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 621/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Vs. Acit, 238/2, Atharva Estate, Central Circle, E-Ward, Tarabai Park – 416 003 Kolhapur Kolhapur, Maharashtra Pan : Agupp5765D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…chaser’s hands. Reliance can be made to the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shahzada begum (1988) 173 ITR 397 and also the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (deceased) 211 ITR 804 wherein the Hon’ble High Court after referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. T.N.Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46 and the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mrs. Shahzada Begum (1988) 173 ITR 397 held that the term “purchase” employed in sub-section (2) of section 54, is not used…

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

…has only to invest net sale consideration in purchase or construct a residential house and therefore registration or legal ownership is not necessary which is evident from Circular No. 471 dated 15-10-1986 issued by CBDT and from judgements of Balraj Vs. CIT 254 ITR 22 and CIT Vs. Laxmi Chand 211 ITR 804 and various other judgements on the issue. Thus, agreement to purchase copy of which submitted proves domain and control of assessee on the land in the hands of assessee and satisfies the connotation of Page 30 of 33 ITANo.214/Ind/2023 M/s. Rockbed Renovators Ltd. purchase of land for construction of resident…

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

…n purchase or construct a residential house and therefore registration or legal ownership is not necessary which is evident from Circular No. 471 dated 15-10-1986 issued by Page 53 of 55 SR Ferro Alloys Page 54 of 55 CBDT and from judgements of Balraj Vs. CIT 254 ITR 22 and CIT Vs. Laxmi Chand 211 ITR 804 and various other judgements on the issue. Thus, agreement to purchase copy of which submitted proves domain and control of assessee on the land in the hands of assessee and satisfies the connotation of purchase of land for construction of residential house. WE found from the record that the assessee had investe…

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

…has only to invest net sale consideration in purchase or construct a residential house and therefore registration or legal ownership is not necessary which is evident from Circular No. 471 dated 15-10-1986 issued by CBDT and from judgements of Balraj Vs. CIT 254 ITR 22 and CIT Vs. Laxmi Chand 211 ITR 804 and various other judgements on the issue. Thus, agreement to purchase copy of which submitted proves domain and control of assessee on the land in the hands of assessee and satisfies the connotation of purchase of land for construction of residential house. WE found from the record that the assessee had investe…

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

…has only to invest net sale consideration in purchase or construct a residential house and therefore registration or legal ownership is not necessary which is evident from Circular No. 471 dated 15-10-1986 issued by CBDT and from judgements of Balraj Vs. CIT 254 ITR 22 and CIT Vs. Laxmi Chand 211 ITR 804 and various other judgements on the Page 27 of 29 Maa Narmada Agrotech and Infratures Ltd. Page 28 of 29 issue. Thus, agreement to purchase copy of which submitted proves domain and control of assessee on the land in the hands of assessee and satisfies the connotation of purchase of land for construction of resi…

Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.349/SRT/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: DWIPK2888D Assessee by Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) 10/05/2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 26/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by…

DCIT-1, (International Taxation), Hyderabad vs. Syama Reddy Malireddy, Hyderabad

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

ITA 325/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy

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

…Minerals Ltd. Vs. CIT – 239 ITR 775 (SC). iii. Smt. Shashi Varma Vs. CIT – 224 ITR 106 (Madhya Pradesh High Court). iv. CIT Vs. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia – 216 ITR 376 (Bombay High Court). v. CIT Vs. R.L. Sood – 245 ITR 727 (Delhi High Court) vi. Balraj Vs. CIT – 254 ITR 22 (Delhi High Court). vii. CIT Vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari – 244 ITR 352 (Calcutta High Court). viii. Andhra Networks Vs. DCIT – 167 TTJ 496 (ITAT Hyderabad Bench). ix. CIT Vs. Shahajada Begam – 173 ITR 397 (Andhra Pradesh High Court). x. CIT Vs. Smt. G. Venkata Laxmi – 373 ITR 572 (A.P and Telangana High Court.) xi. CIT Vs. A Suresh Rao – 417/2013…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Shri Radheshyam Agrawal, Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 32/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.32/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. Radheshyam Agrawal 27/B, Ankit Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aczpa6544J ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(47)(v)Section 49Section 53ASection 54F

…full domain and control of the assessee within the period of one year. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs, Kuldeep Singh (2014) 226 Taxman 133 (Delhi) and that of in the case of Balraj Vs. CIT, (2002) 254 ITR 22. 15. Adopting a similar view a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e. ITAT, Delhi Bench “B” in the case of Elegant Infraworld Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2019) 55 CCH 0100 (Del-Trib), had held, that now when the assesee had entered into an sale agreement and handed over the possession of the impugned property to the purchaser then, the same would tantamoun…