CIT v. Bharati C. Kothari

160 CTR 165High Court2000#16930 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 136 Section 139 Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 234A Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 54f section 54 long term capital gain transfer prescribed section 143(3)total income interest

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharati C. Kothari

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 PAN No. ARAPS0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. AR (Through V.C.) &Mr. Devang Gargieya, Adv., Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 04/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 06/03/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed ag…

DINESHBHAI JIVANBHAI SANSPARA,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 435/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 54

…onstructed the residential property accordingly. Therefore, claim u/s 54 is admissible. In letter dated 11.12.15 section 54F written through oversight which may please be rectified. The Calcutta High Court has observed in the case of CIT vs. Bharati C Kothari 160 CTR 165 (Cal) that: “The purpose behind the exemption under section 54(1) is that if any assessee sales his residential house and purchase a new house against those sale consideration, the capital gains arising out of the sale of the earlier house should not be taxed. Whether assessee himself constructs the house or he gets it constructed by a contractor…

DHARMISTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. PAN: AAFPM5272R ...... Appellant Vs. ITO-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent by : Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 18/07/2022 Date of pronouncement : 12/10/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commis…

SHRI BHUPESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2287/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2287/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

…ion(2) of section 54 of the Act on the strength of various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of K.Ramachandra Rao as well in the case of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt.Bharati C.Kothari (2000) 160 CTR 165. I am of the view that Division Bench of the ITAT has made a lucid enunciation of law while explaining the scope of section 54(2). I cannot do better than to extract the discussion made by the ITAT which read as under: “4. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through t h e r e c o r d s . A d m i t t e d l y, t h e c a p i t a…

SANDEEP VIJAY MITTAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 4631/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sandeep Vijay Mittal, The Acit-17(3), 5, Sunrise Building, Aayakar Bhavan, 3Rd Pasta Lane, Colaba, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400005 Vs. Pan: Agdpm1694F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.C. Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Smt. Arju Garodia (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2018

For Appellant: Shri V.C. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Smt. Arju Garodia (DR)

Section 143Section 54F

…e Ld. counsel, the Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Mrs. Madhu Kaul vs. CIT, ITA No. 89 of 1999 and the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Bharati C. Kothari(2000)160 CTR 165 and various other decisions of the Tribunal, has held, in the case of Seema Sabharwal vs. ITO, ITA No. 272/Chd/2017 that if the assessee invests the long term capital gain in purchase/ construction of building within the stipulated period and the construction is in progress, then the benefit of exemption cannot be denied to the assessee on the gr…