CIT v. Ajit Singh Khajanchi

297 ITR 95High Court2008#15567 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Ajit Singh Khajanchi

Giriraj Prasad, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Bundi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148wSection 263Section 54F

…sfer. By making the payment to the builder and having received allotment letter in lieu thereof, the assessee will be holding capital asset." Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ajitsingh Khajanchi on 25 April, 2007 [297 ITR 95], held as under: “......We are fortified in the above view by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Balmj v. CIT to the effect that for the purpose of attracting the provision, it was not necessary that the assessee should have become the owner of the property. Section 54F spoke of purchase and registration was not imperative.” Hon'ble Punjab Ha…

ACIT Central-2 Indore, Indore vs. Shri .Gaurav Tekriwal, Indore

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54FSection 55(2)(a)Section 57

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 ACIT, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: ACPPT 1628 Q Assessee by Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, ARs Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-o…

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

…word interpreted as well as its context are different, the ratio of that decision will have no application to the instant case.” Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. Ajit Singh Khajanchi (2008) 297 ITR 95 (MP.HC). It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in order to claim benefit of the provision of section 54F, it is not necessary that the new house should be registered in the name of the assessee, for the reason that the section only speaks of purchase and registration is not imperative. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of…

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

…ctional HC verdicts 4.It is clear that the law laid down by the Parliament stipulates purchase, and not title or legal ownership. The jurisdictional High Court of MP has also interpreted in an identical manner in the case of CIT v. Ajit Singh Khajanchi (2007) 297 ITR 95 (MP) where it was held as follows: Section 54F speaks of purchase and registration was not imperative. Therefore, Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the benefits of section 54F even if the transfer was not evidenced by a registered deed. [Para 3, 4, 11 of the judgment] It was similarly held in Smt Shashi Verma v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 1016 (MP…

Seema M. Pillai, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, 19(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 3075/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2011-12) Mrs. Seema M. Pillai Vs. Ito-19(1)(4), Mumbai 94-C, Ruby House, Cst Road, (Respondent) Kalina, Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai 400 029 (Appellant) Pan : Afrpp2491N

For Appellant: Shri Ronak N. SolankiFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh

Section 143(3)Section 54

…. 54 should be interpreted pragmatically, as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh in ITA No. 117 of 2014 dated 12.8.2014. It was also canvassed that the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ajitsingh Khajanchi, 297 ITR 95 (MP) observed that Sec. 54 of the Act speaks of purchase and that registration was not imperative. At the time of hearing, the learned representative for the assessee also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari, 244 ITR 352 (Cal.) to point out that when substantial investment has been…

ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Girdharilal Asudani (HUF), Mumbai

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

ITA 1428/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm) & Ashwani Taneja (Am) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1428/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax -19(1)(3), Shri Girdharilal Asudani (Huf), बनाम/ Room No.314, 3Rdh Floor, 201, Kirti Kunj Apartment, Vs. 14Th Road, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Lalbaug, Khar (W), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400052 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 54FSection 68

…is not necessary that the assessee should become the owner of the property by a registered document only. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the following decisions: a) CIT V/s T N Arvinda Reddy (1997) 12 CTR 423 (SC) b) CIT V/s Ajit Singh Khajanji 297 ITR 95 (MP) 19. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the record placed before us and also gone through the cases relied upon by both the parties. We find that full payment of purchase value of asset has been made by the assessee before filing of the return of income for the year under consideration. Thus, the assessee has utilized the amoun…