Bhavna Cuccria v. ITO

165 ITD 124Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#9231 most cited

What is Bhavna Cuccria v. ITO authority for?

Deduction under section 54 is allowed even if construction of the new residential house is delayed beyond three years from the date of transfer of the original asset, provided the delay is for reasons beyond the assessee's control and substantial investment has been made.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Bhavna Cuccria v. ITO · section 54 · capital gains · new house construction · delay beyond control · substantial investment · section 54F · 143(3) · 263 · 165 ITD 124 · 82 Taxmann.com 306

Also reported as

82 Taxmann.com 306

Sections most often in play

Section 54Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

section 54fsection 54transferprescribedtotal income

Judgments citing Bhavna Cuccria v. ITO

Ramautar Saraf (HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 59(3), Kolkata

ITA 2482/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsian &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 143(2)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No. 2482/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year:2016-17) Ramautar Saraf (HUF) BF-256, Block-BF, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700064 West Bengal (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward 59(3) Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex, DS-IV, Manicktala Civil Centre, Kolkata-700067, West Bengal (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsian & Ms. Puja Somani, ARs Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR Date of hearing: 06.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 20.01.2026 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the…

Rajni Kumar Wife of Shri Brig. Narender Kumar H.No.394, Sector-21, Gurgaonn, Gurgaon vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 3188/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. SR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B’, NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajni Kumar, vs. ITO, Ward 3 (1), W/o Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (PAN : AYYPK1781A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. SR Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National F…

Dhananjay Madhukar Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledhananjay Madhukar Naik V. Ito 12(3)(3) 306, Meghdoot Chsl, Sahaji Raje Marg Room No. 1631, 16Th Floor Koldongri, Vile Parle (W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400057 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Alrpn7498M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Anil Masand Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

…ressed in the under mentioned cases also: Asstt. CIT v. M. Raghuraman [2018] 91 taxmann.com 11/169 ITD 315 (Chennai Trib.), Smt. Babitha Kemparaje Urs v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 43/167 ITD 125 (Bangalore Trib) Bhauna Cuceria v. ITO [2017] 82 taxmann.com 306/165 ITD 124 (Chandigarh Trib), Kannan Chandrasekar u. ITO [2017] 82 taxmann.com 284/165 ITD 223 (Chennai - Trib.) (Placed at PB Page No. 237-267).” 12. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 13. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that assessee has sold the inherited p…

Rajesh Chand Surana, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54ESection 54F

…hin the specified period of three years. A reference was made to the decision rendered in the case of : - CIT vs. Sardarmal Kohari (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Mad), Page Nos.160 to 162 of Paper Book, relevant finding on page no.162; - Bhavana Cuccria vs. ITO (2017) 165 ITD 124 (Chd.) Page Nos.119 to 129 of Paper Book, relevant findings on page no.129; - Pr. CIT vs. Dilip Ranjrekar (2019) taxmann.com 114 (Karn.) Page Nos.130 to 132 of Paper Book, relevant findings on page no.131; - Bal Kishan Atal vs. ACIT (2019) 176 ITD 330 (Del), page Nos.163 to 173 of Paper Book, relevant findings on page no.170. 8. The assessee fu…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH "ीमती "दवा "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं, एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 8/CHD/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2008-09 Shri Keshav Dutt Shreedhar, The DCIT, बनाम S/o Shri Brahm Dutt Sharma, Circle, VS Legalies Near Marina, Shimla. The Mall, Shimla (HP). "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: ADXPS6141G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vishal Mohan राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Chander…

Pranay Lalitkumar Jain, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1347/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 2(22)(e)Section 54F

…not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, the assessee should get benefit of exemption u/s.54F of the Act. 6.2 The Ld. AR of the assessee also referred to the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Bhavna Cuccria Vs. ITO (165 ITD 124) (Chd.-Trib.) held that “wherein substantial amount of capital gain has been invested by the assessee for purpose of purchasing a new house, deduction u/s.54 cannot be denied for the reason that construction was not completed within three years or house was not purchased within two years.” The Ld. AR further referred to the decision of the Mumba…

Kruti Lalitkumar Jain, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1346/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 2(22)(e)Section 54F

…not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, the assessee should get benefit of exemption u/s.54F of the Act. 6.2 The Ld. AR of the assessee also referred to the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Bhavna Cuccria Vs. ITO (165 ITD 124) (Chd.-Trib.) held that “wherein substantial amount of capital gain has been invested by the assessee for purpose of purchasing a new house, deduction u/s.54 cannot be denied for the reason that construction was not completed within three years or house was not purchased within two years.” The Ld. AR further referred to the decision of the Mumba…

Lalitkumar Kesarimal Jain, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1345/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 2(22)(e)Section 54F

…not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, the assessee should get benefit of exemption u/s.54F of the Act. 6.2 The Ld. AR of the assessee also referred to the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Bhavna Cuccria Vs. ITO (165 ITD 124) (Chd.-Trib.) held that “wherein substantial amount of capital gain has been invested by the assessee for purpose of purchasing a new house, deduction u/s.54 cannot be denied for the reason that construction was not completed within three years or house was not purchased within two years.” The Ld. AR further referred to the decision of the Mumba…

Dr. Rajinder Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4089/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Rajneesh Behari Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54o

…54 of the Act and if the possession of the property is not delivered within 4 three years for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, denial is unjustified. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in the cases of (i) Bhavna Cuccria vs ITO, (Chd) 82 Taxmann.com 306; (ii) Smt. Shashi Verma vs CIT, 224 ITR 106 (MP); (iii) Satish Chandra vs AO, 54 ITD 508 (Del); (iv) CIT vs. SambandamUdaykumar, 19 Taxmann.com. 17 (kar); and (vi) Kishore H Galaiya vs ITO, 24 Taxmann.com 11 (Mum) for the principle that it would be incorrect to refuse the benefit u/s 54 of the Act on the ground that the new residential hou…

Jagdish Wadhwani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 975/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 975/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Shri Jagdish Wadhwani, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 135, Sindhi Colony, Ward 3(2), Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAFPW 5798 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Ranka (Advocate) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

ITO WD 25(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Uttamchand B Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 54

…Shri Uttamchand B.Jain. 5. In support of the submission the AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi (389 ITR 366), decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhavna Cuccria vs. ITO (165 ITD 124)(Chd.-Trib.) ACIT vs. M. Raghuraman (169 ITD 315)(Chennai-Trib.) Mrs. Seema Sabharwal vs. ITO (169 ITO 319) (Chd.-Trib.), Gautam Jhunjhunwala vs. ITO (ITA No.1356/Kol/2017 dated 7th Sept. 2018) 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The AO /revenue has…

Sachin Kataria, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-36(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 499/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2008-09 Sachin Kataria, Acit, Circle- 36(1), C-65, Sector- 50, Noida, New Delhi. Vs. Uttar Pradesh.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 2Section 54Section 54F

…the action of the Assessing Officer. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. Ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhavna Cuccria vs. ITO reported in 165 ITD 124 submitted that where substantial amount of capital gain has been invested by assessee for the purpose of purchasing a new house, deduction u/s 54 cannot be denied for reason that construction was not completed within three years or house was not purchased within two years. 11. Referring to the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in ITO…

Bhavna Cuccria v. ITO (165 ITD 124) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax