CIT v. C. Jaichander

370 ITR 579High Court2015#3379 most cited

What is CIT v. C. Jaichander authority for?

An assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54EC even if the investment of capital gains is made in two different financial years, provided the investment is within six months from the date of transfer of the capital asset.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. C. Jaichander · section 54EC · investment in bonds · delay in investment · non-availability of bonds · capital gains deduction · six months period · two financial years · Madras High Court · 370 ITR 579

Issues it is cited on

section 54esection 54(1)section 54eclong-term capital assetsection 55asection 13(2)section 53asection 53within four yearsfresh tangible materialsection 55transfer of capital asset

Judgments citing CIT v. C. Jaichander

ACIT, 23(3), Mumbai vs. Richard Duggan Cooper, Mumbai

ITA 4782/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54E

…o make an investment of Rs.50 lakhs each in two different financial years and is able to claim exemption upto Rs.1 crore u/s 54EC of the Act. The Ld.AR further referring to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs C Jaichandar (2015) 370 ITR 579 (Mad), submitted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court clarified the position of law insofar as quantum of deduction available u/s 54EC and held that if the assessee makes investment of Rs.50 lakhs in any financial year it would have the benefit of section 54EC(1) and such investments falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the a…

Sanjeet Rajendra Gugale, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.386/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 54E

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “बी "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे बी बी” पुणे बी पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य सद"य डी डी राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा एवं "ी "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" एवं एवं एवं िवकास िवकास BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA No.386/PUN/201…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1) Now DCIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. M/S. Gujarat Concrete Product, Baroda

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 485/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2018AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54E

…ndings of AO on record and merits of the case.” 3. Learned representatives fairly agree that the issue in appeal is now squarely covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon’ble Madras High Court’s judgment in the case of CIT vs. C. Jaichander & Another [(2015) 370 ITR 579 (Mad)] and there is nothing contrary thereto by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. In the said case, Hon’ble Madras High Court has, inter alia, observed as follows:- “5. The key issue that arises for consideration is whether the first proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act would restrict the benefit of investment of capital gains in bonds to that…

Shri Shashin Manibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT(Intl. Taxn.), Baroda

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3603/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Kinjal V. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54E

…ry provision caps the re-investment amount to Rs.50lacs only. They therefore restrict assessee’s claim to Rs.50lacs to disallow the remaining equal amount. We find no force in this approach. Hon’ble Madras high court’s judgment in CIT vs. C. Jaichander (2015) 370 ITR 579 (Madras) has admittedly upheld a co-ordinate bench’s decision that such a deduction claim of Rs.50 lacs each spread over to two financial years but falling within six months of the capital asset’s transfer in question is very much allowable. We further take not of the fact that the legislature has inserted second proviso to Section 54EC (1) intro…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Ajay Kaila, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6907/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 54Section 54E

…lling in two different financial years. ITAT observed that interpretation of proviso to Sec 54EC should not lead to discrimination against various taxpayers depending upon date of transfer. 9. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs S Jaichander reported in 370 ITR 579 [Mad] has held as under: “The key issue that arises for consideration is whether the first proviso to Section 54EC(1) of the Act would restrict the benefit of investment of capital gains in bonds to that financial year during which the property was sold or it applies to any financial year during the six months period.” 10. For better understand…

The Dy.DIT ( Intl. Taxn.) - I, Ahmedabad vs. Smt. Bella Amin, Ahmedabad

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2257/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jigar M. Patel, A.R
Section 54E

…of appeal are therefore, allowed. 9. Before us, the ld. D.R. could not controvert the findings of the First Appellate Authority. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of C. Jaichander 370 ITR 579 and Coromandel Industries Ltd. 370 ITR 586 in support the findings of the First Appellate Authority. 10. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the transfer of house property took place on 11th February 2011, the assessee purchased capital gain exemption bond of NHAI on 28.02.2011 for 50 lak…

DCIT, Udupi vs. Shri. Borkatte Ganapathi Hegde, Udupi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 964/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavadeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1, Udupi. ... Appellant Vs. Shri Borkatte Ganapathi Hegde, S/O Shri A.Laxman Hegde, Borkatte, Karkala, Udupi-574320. ... Respondent Pan:Aagph 8430 D

For Appellant: Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)For Respondent: Smt. H.G.Vinutha, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54E

…ons of the AO are as follows: Page 4 of 10 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order, allowed the appeal placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. C.Jaichander (2015) 370 ITR 579: The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under: Page 5 of 10 6. Being aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. The only issue that arises in the present appeal is whether the assessee is entitled for deduction of claim u/s 54EC in respect of investment made in prescribed bonds though in different Page…

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Nilesh Ramesh Ganjwala, Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7112/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Niresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Vipul K. Mody
Section 54E

…elied upon the order’s of the A.O and the grounds of appeal. Per contra Ld. 3 Nilesh Ramesh Ganjwala ITA no.7112/Mum./2014 Counsel of the assessee submitted that identical issue was considered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. C. Jaichander 370 ITR 579. Ld. Counsel submitted that after elaborate consideration the Hon’ble High court has found that second provisio to section 54EC is effectively from 11.04.2015. Hence Ld. Counsel submitted that the said proviso is not applicable in assessee’s case and hence the A.O’s order is unsustainable. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions and peru…

Vinodkumar M. Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 16(2) Now 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10

ITA 171/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainvinodkumar M. Jain (Huf), Flat No.25,8Th Floor, Matru Mandir, 278, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 4007 Pan:Aachv 2174 G ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri D.B. Sanghvi & Rakesh SakariaFor Respondent: Shri M. V.Rajguru
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54E

…udicial pronouncements which are stated to be directly on the issue of exemption under section 54EC of the Act on similar facts and circumstances as in the case on hand and cover the issue squarely in favour of the assessee :- (i) CIT vs.C. Jaichander (2015) 370 ITR 579(Mad.); (ii) CIT vs. Coromandal Industries Ltd. (2014) 370 ITR 586(Mad); (iii) Dr. Kumar M. Dhawale vs. ACIT- 11(2) (ITA No.7585/M/2012 dated 9/10/2015); (iv) JNR Securities Broking Ltd.(ITA No.6987/Mum/2013 dated 8/07/2015); (v) Vivek Jairozbhoy vs. DCIT (ITA No.236/Bang/2012 dated 14/12/2012). 6.2 Per contra, the ld.DR for the Revenue suppo…

Falubai M Jain, Mumbai vs. Aciat Cir 16(2) Now 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10

ITA 134/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfalubai M. Jain, Flat No.25,8Th Floor, Matru Mandir, 278, Tardeo Road, Mumbai 4007 Pan:Admpj 8215 ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri D.B. Sanghvi & Rakesh SakariaFor Respondent: Ms Anu Kirishna Agarwal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54E

…udicial pronouncements which are stated to be directly on the issue of exemption under section 54EC of the Act on similar facts and circumstances as in the case on hand and cover the issue squarely in favour of the assessee :- (i) CIT vs.C. Jaichander (2015) 370 ITR 579(Mad.); (ii) CIT vs. Coromandal Industries Ltd. (2014) 370 ITR 586(Mad); (iii) Dr. Kumar M. Dhawale vs. ACIT- 11(2) (ITA No.7585/M/2012 dated 9/10/2015); (iv) JNR Securities Broking Ltd.(ITA No.6987/Mum/2013 dated 8/07/2015); (v) Vivek Jairozbhoy vs. DCIT (ITA No.236/Bang/2012 dated 14/12/2012). 6.2 Per contra, the ld.DR for the Revenue supported…

Shivkumar Mirchandani, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7054/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54E

…inancial year instead of Rs.1 crore as claimed by assessee. Same was disallowed and CIT(A) confirmed the same. 4. Before us, ld. Authorized Representative drew our attention to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. C. Jaichander [2015] 370 ITR 579 (Mad.), wherein it was held as under: “The assessee sold a property for a sale consideration of Rs.3,46,50,000 and invested Rs.1 crore out of the sale proceeds in certain bonds in two financial years, namely, Rs.50 lakhs in Rural Electrification Corporation Bonds in the financial year 2007-08 and Rs. 50 lakhs in National Highways HAI Bond in the…

P.V.Gopalakrishna, Vellore vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2254/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2254/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012 Shri. P.V. Gopalakrishna, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.25, Old No.8A, of Income Tax, Thiagarajapuram, Vellore. Vellore. [PAN AAFPG 1993D ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. A.V. Sreekanth…

P.R.Viswanath, Vellore vs. ACIT, Vellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2274/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार",लेखा सद"य एवं "ीजी. पवन कुमार,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/I.T.A. No.2274/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012 Shri. P.R. Viswanath, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No.330/2-12, Mangudu Village,V.K. Income Tax, Mangudi To Pudupadi Road, Vellore, Arcot Taluk, Vellore [PAN AADPV 6060G ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A. : Shri. A.V. Sreekan…

DCIT vs. Treads Direct Limited, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2941/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

…ective in nature. As far as the ITA Nos.2794 &2941/Mds/2014 :- 23 -: assessee company is concerned the law prevailing on the date of transaction shall apply and supported with judicial decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of CIT vs. C. Jaichander 370 ITR 579 (Mad) and CIT vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd. 370 ITR 586 (Mad) and pleaded to dismiss Revenue appeal. 8.5. We heard the rival submissions of both the parties, perused the material on record and also judicial citations quoted. The assessee has invested in long term capital gains within six months from the date of transfer u/s.54EC of the Act…

Treadsdirect Limited, Coimbatore vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2794/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

…ective in nature. As far as the ITA Nos.2794 &2941/Mds/2014 :- 23 -: assessee company is concerned the law prevailing on the date of transaction shall apply and supported with judicial decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of CIT vs. C. Jaichander 370 ITR 579 (Mad) and CIT vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd. 370 ITR 586 (Mad) and pleaded to dismiss Revenue appeal. 8.5. We heard the rival submissions of both the parties, perused the material on record and also judicial citations quoted. The assessee has invested in long term capital gains within six months from the date of transfer u/s.54EC of the Act…