CIT v. Bharti Mishra

41 Taxmann.com 50High Court2014#5369 most cited

What is CIT v. Bharti Mishra authority for?

Section 54F(1) allows an individual or HUF to claim exemption on long-term capital gains from assets other than a residential house if they purchase a residential house within one year before or two years after the transfer date. The provision is beneficial and should be interpreted liberally when the old asset is replaced by a new residential asset.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bharti Mishra · Section 54F · Section 54 · Section 45 · long term capital gain · date of transfer · previous year · purchase of residential house · exemption · capital asset

Also reported as

265 CTR 374222 Taxmann 2

Sections most often in play

Section 54FSection 54Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 54f(1)date of transfersection 54fsection 54section 45long term capital gaintransferprevious yearsection 139section 143(2)section 13section 143

Judgments citing CIT v. Bharti Mishra

ACIT, Chennai vs. Haripriay Jagdish, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1532/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Murali Mohan, ACIT, D.RFor Respondent: Mr.P.S.Prabhakar,C.A
Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1532/Mds./2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year :2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Mrs.Haripriya Jagdish, A-3, 3rd floor, Old No.17, New Income Tax, Non corporate circle -15, No.18,11 Crescent park Road, Chennai 600 034. Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [PAN ACLPH 5475 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क"…

Shri Jagdish Rai Karnani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 35(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

ITA 594/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri B.C.Jain, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 54

…ot invested in the construction of the Surya Nagar house, will be exempted under Section 54 of the Act.” 12 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani A.Yr.2012-13 Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Bharti Mishra reported in (2014) 265 CTR 374 (Del) wherein it was held as under:- HELD that section 54F(1) if read carefully states that assessee being an individual or HUF, who had earned capital gains from transfer of any long-term capital not being a residential house could claim benefit under the said section provided, anyone of the following three conditions were satisfied; (i) the as…