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 366,339 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

DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat vs. Balvantbhai Dullabhbhai Patel, Surat

In the result the appeal for AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 130/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T.,Circle-1(3), Balvantbhai Dullabhbhai Patel, Room No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil “Manikunj”, Near Jamna Nagar Vs. Business Centre, Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, Adajan-Hazira Road, Surat-395007. Surat-395007. Pan No. Agnpp 7871 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 2(47)Section 254(1)Section 53ASection 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) D.C.I.T.,Circle-1(3), Balvantbhai Dullabhbhai Patel, Room No. 301, 3rd Floor, Anavil “Manikunj”, Near Jamna Nagar Vs. Business Centre, Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, Adajan-Hazira Road, Surat-395007. Surat-395007. PAN No. AGNPP 7871 K Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR Assessee represented by Shri Saurabh N Soparkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ukti Shah, Advocate Date of hearing 13/07/2022 Date of pr…

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedbad vs. Ashif Mehbbobelahi Rushnaiwala, Ahmedabad

ITA 329/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S L Poddar, A.R

Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 50Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2011-12 The ITO Ward-1(2)(1), Ashif Mehbbobelahi Ahmedabad Rushnaiwala 10, Vs Jalaram Estate Nr. (Appellant) Railway Crossing Sarkhej Sarkhej Ahmedabad382210 PAN: AATPR0611F (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Shri S L Poddar, A.R. Date of hearing : 13-06-2022 Date of pronouncement : 22-06-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the…

Bharat Shah, Indore vs. The ITO3(4), Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

ITA 181/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

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

…' for the purpose of exemption from capital gains is not used in the strict sense of legal transfer and holding of legal title within one year is not a condition precedent for attracting Section 54/54F, as was held in CIT v. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (1995) 211 ITR 804(Bom) and Dr. R. K. Bhatnagar v. ITO (1993) 45 ITO 45 (Del) •Where investment is made in purchase of house, registration is not mandatory for the purpose of claiming exemption, as held in Seema Sabharwal v. ITO (2018) 169 ITO 0319 3.Purchase of house permitted from Brother/Mother/Son/Father or any other relative There are various precedents, which…

Manish Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Late Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR

Section 160Section 160(1)(i)Section 161(1)Section 163Section 2(14)Section 48Section 54F

…said section is on investment of net consideration received on sale of original asset and start of construction of a new residential house. Whether Registered Deed Necessary to Claim Deduction u/s 54F a) In CIT vs Dr Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (Deceased) (1995) 211 ITR 804 (Bom), Bombay High Court have held that taking into consideration the letter and spirit of section 54, the word “purchase” is not used in the sense of legal transfer. High Court held that where the tax payer had paid the full consideration, obtained the possession of the flat and had actually put the flat to use, exemption u/s 54 cannot be denied…

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

…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 21 Smt. Lata Phulwan…

Basheer Noorullah Khan, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore

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

ITA 575/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Basheer Noorullah Khan, No. 116B, 5Th Block, Khb The Commissioner Of Colony, Koramangala, Vs. Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore – 560 034. Bangalore. Pan: Ajxpk3037H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 17ASection 53ASection 54Section 54F

…. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company in Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2007 and disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 54F of the IT Act. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Balraj Vs. CIT as reported in 254 ITR 22. He also filed written submissions of two pages. He submitted that the issue may be decided after considering written submissions and also after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court cited by him. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. He also placed reliance on the same judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rende…

Anil Kumar Goyal HUF, Firozabad vs. ITO Ward-5(1), Firozabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year:2012-13

Section 54Section 54F

…en started within three years from the date of transfer of residential house. For this reason the judicial decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR for the appellant, especially in the case of Smt. Shashi Verma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Balraj v CIT(2002) 254 ITR 22, due to the reasons mentioned above, is not found to be having any application to the facts of instant case. Therefore, for the reason that the construction of house(flat) for which the appellant claimed benefit of section 54F of the Act was not even started within three years from the date of transfer and even till date the appellant has not got…

Sh. Bal Kishan Atal, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2649/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 234BSection 54Section 54BSection 54F

…ion under section 54 cannot be denied in case possession is not granted or purchase deed is not executed by reason beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Balraj Vs. CIT, [2002] 254 ITR 22, order dated 06.12.2001. Ld. AR also placed reliance on following judgments in support of its contention. 1. CIT vs. R.L. Sood, [2000] 245 ITR 727 2. Delhi ITAT in the case of DR. JASVIR SINGH RANA Vs. ITO, ITA No.5568/Del./2015, order dated 22.09.2017 3. Delhi ITAT in the case of Sanjay Khanna, c/o. JeetanNagpal Vs. DDIT(International Taxation),…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(3), Mumbai vs. Vishal Dilip Sankhe, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4376/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishore, AR

Section 292BSection 54FSection 56(2)(v)Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner of Income Shri Vishal Dilip Sankhe, Tax-23(3), 901, Libra Tower, Hill Road, Vs. MUMBAI Bandra (W), MUMBAI [PAN : AEBPS7758E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR Respondent By : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishore, AR Date of Hearing : 20-11-2018 Date of Pronouncement :30 -01-2019 O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commi…

Shri Dashrath Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 296/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 296/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Dashrath Ambalal Patel, Ito, बनाम/ 9, Jashwant Society, Ward – 7(2), Vs. Jodhpur Char Rasta, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad – 380 015. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akypp 5852 G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Mehul Talera, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Mehul Talera, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 250Section 54Section 54F

…250 ITR 542 categorically held that it is the date of execution of immovable property rather than date of registration which is all important The appellant's case is squarely covered with Hon'ble Delhi high court decision in the case of Balraj Vs. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 22. It was held by Hon'ble high court that- "For the purpose of attracting the provisions of sec. 54 of the IT. Act, it is not necessary that the assessee should become the owner of the property. Sec. 54 of the Act speaks of purchase." Hon'ble high court relied on supreme court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. T. N. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46…

ACIT 23(1), Mumbai vs. T.K. Venkateshwaran, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8538/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 54

…um/2011 entitled for exemption. The relevant portion of the order of the CIT(A) is extracted below:- “4.5 He has also cited certain case laws i.e. Smt. Shashi Varma vs. CIT [1997J 224 ITR 106 (MP), CIT vs. R.L. Scod (2000) 227 (Delhi), Balraj vs. CIT (2002] 254 ITR 22 (Delhi), SaUsh Chandra Gupta vs. A.O. [1995J 54 1TD 508 and CIT vs. Hilla J.B. Wadia [1995] 216 ITR 376 [Bom]. The appellant has also argued that entire sale proceeds were paid for all these three units merged into one remdential house, the exemption 54 has to be allowed even .when possession is delayed by a month from the end of three years from…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Raminder Singh Narang, New Delhi

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4461/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Raminder Singh Narang, Circle-38(1), C/O. Romana Herbal Care Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, E-43, Flatted Factory Complex, Jhandewalan, New Delhi Pan:Aacpn5607L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GS Kholi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

…r only o possession of the property and therefore the appellant is eligible to claim deduction under section 54 F of the income tax act, 1961. The Ld. CIT appeal followed the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Dr Luxmi Chand Nagda 211 ITR 804 for reaching at this conclusion. 7. Regarding the income of Rs. 168000/- added under the income from house property, he held that proviso to section 23 (1) ( C ) provides that if the house property is vacant then annual value of the same cannot be charged to tax. He further held that as the assessee was holding the house property, but same was no…

Dr. Jasvir Singh Rana, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5568/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

…ts to take the possession of the property from the developer by approaching Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad as well as National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. 12. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case cited as Balraj v. Commissioner of Income-Tax [2002] 254 ITR 22 (Del) held that for the purpose of attracting the provisions of section 54 of the Income-tax Act, it is not necessary that the assessee should become the owner of the property as registration of the document was not imperative. So once the assessee has paid substantial amount to purchase the property within a period of one year he has become en…

Shri Sushil Kumar Bafna, Ujjain vs. The ITO 1(1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 637/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 45Section 54F

…o capital gains in year in which period of 3 years expires, however, exemption already granted shall not be denied. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the hardship should be avoided. The Ld. A.R. has cited a decision in the case of CIT v. Bharti C Kothari 254 ITR 22 (Cal) to contend that if the interpretation sought by the Department is accepted, this will lead to hardship to the assessee for no fault of the assessee. 10. The Ld. A.R. has placed reliance in the case of ITO v. K. C. Gopalan [1999] 107 Taxman 591 (Ker) where the assessee has sold a residential house and acquired new residential house, and c…

Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 6093/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. Cit-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakps 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 22.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 06.8.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 29.4.213. 2. The Issue In The Instant Appeal Is The Sustainability Or Otherwise In Law Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act, I.E., In The Given Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

Section 2(47)Section 269USection 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Yogesh Sunderlal Shah, Dy. CIT-24(1), F/107, Shreepal Industrial Estate, C/13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, बनाम/ New Oshivara Bridge, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Vs. S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai-400 102 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAKPS 2779 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri K. Gopal, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : S…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Yashodhar Kumar Jain, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee as well as

ITA 1697/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 40Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Yashodhar Kumar Jain, vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 221, Kailash Hills, Circle 23(1), New Delhi New Delhi (PAN:AAPPJ6527Q) AND Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), vs. Yoshodhar Kumar Jain, ROOM NO. 190, CR BLDG., 221, Kailash Hills, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI New Delhi (PAN:AAPPJ6527Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : None Department by: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16-05-2016 Date of Order : 03-06-2016 ORDER…

Yashodhar Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee as well as

ITA 1449/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 40Section 54

Vishal Dutt, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 878/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-(DR)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “F” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), v. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAGPD 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Neelesh Bajaj Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-(DR) सुनवाई क" तार"…

Pravin L. Manania, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri. M. Dayasagar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 54

…ge of opinion on an issue which has already been considered and allowed by the assessee. The Ld. AR also contended that even on merits, the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54 of the Act was to be allowed in view of the following decisions:- (i) L N Nagda (211 ITR 804) (Bom) (ii) Hilla Wadia (216 ITR 376) (Bom) (iii) Madhu Kaul (363 ITR 54) (P & H) (iv) Seetha Subramanian (59 ITD 94) (Mad) The Ld. AR contends that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act ought to be cancelled. 5 Assessment Year: 2007-08 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR emphatically supported the impugned order of…

ITO 20(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Chandrakant Himatlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6725/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 54

…hip would be taken from the point in 6 Mr. Chandrakant Himatlal Shah CO. No. 14/Mum/2015 time when 'domain and control were given into the assessee’s hands' and allowed the claim of the appellant. 6.53 In the case of CIT v Dr. Laxmichand N. Nagda reported at 211 ITR 804, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court adjudicated on a matter wherein exemption u/s 54 had been disallowed by the A.O. on the grounds that the sale deed was not registered within the specified period. The Court while examining the allowability of the claim emphasized that the meaning of the word purchase should be construed liberally and held as follows…