Bombay Housing Corporation v. ACIT

81 ITD 545Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#21424 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2017.

Sections most often in play

Section 54

Judgments citing Bombay Housing Corporation v. ACIT

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

…sessee has invested 87.90 Lakh before sale of original asset. In support of the claim that investment can be made out of borrowed money in acquisition of new asset, the AR has relied in the case of Bombay Housing Corporation v. ACIT (2002) 76 TTJ (Mum) 25: 81 ITD 545(Mum) wherein the AO has held that sale consideration was not invested in specified assets and the assessee had diverted sale consideration of Rs. 3.55 crores to various partners and investment had been made in specified assets by borrowing an amount of Rs. 1.42 crores. The ITAT held that what the section requires is that it is necessary for the…

Smt. Neelam Handa, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 384/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishineelam Handa, Ito, C-7/7, Ground Floor, Ward-20(4), Vs. Model Town-Iii, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abgph5388D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Dharampal Maini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR

Section 54Section 54F

…ement of law that same amount of sale consideration should be utilised for acquisition of property for claiming exemption under section 54 of the Act. The Tribunal placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Bombay Housing Corporation [2002] 81 ITD 545 (Mumbai). But, this case pertains to the exemption claimed under section 54E of the Act and under section 54E there is no provision like sub- section (4) which puts a condition precedent that if the sale proceeds is not appropriated for purchase of the new residential house before the due date of the filing of the return, the same be deposited in…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Tnn Shetty(HUF), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1129/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Vishnu Bharath, CA

Section 148Section 54E

…e of the fact from which funds such investment is made.” 3.6 The Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Harishchandra G.Kathpal [ITA.No.6264 of 2020 dated 21/10/2011], Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in ACIT v. Pasricha (20 SOT 468) and Bombay Housing Corporation v. ACIT (81 ITD 545) have also held that the assessees were entitled to exemption u/s 54EC though they had made investments in the specified securities out of money taken on overdraft. Respectfully following the said decisions, I hold that the appellant is entitled to the deduction u/s S4EC claimed by it in respect of the investment made by it out of withdrawals made…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Padmavathy

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/1147/2006HC Karnataka16 Aug 2012

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

Section 260Section 54Section 54E

…tion under Section 54EA of the Act. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.1473/Bang/2003. The Appellate Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Bombay High Court reported in 81 ITD 545 (BOMBAY HOUSING CORPORATION LTD. v/s ACIT) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the CIT (Appeals). Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has preferred this appeal. 4. The appeal was admitted for consideration of the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the investment…