How many judgments cite CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd.?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd. (370 ITR 586), spanning 2015 to 2024.

CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd.

370 ITR 586High Court2015#4349 most cited

What is CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd. authority for?

Investment in bonds for Section 54EC deduction made within six months from the date of transfer of the original asset is considered proper, even if made in different financial years.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd. · section 54EC · long-term capital asset · date of transfer · investment in bonds · six months from transfer · AY 2015-16 · Finance Act 2014

Issues it is cited on

section 54e section 54ec long-term capital asset date of transfer section 54 transfer section 143 prescribed section 14 section 143(3)business

Judgments citing CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd.

Rajendra Harjivandas Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 949/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…f the bonds. The above position is reiterated and confirmed by various other courts of law as under: CIT Vs. C. Jaichander(2015) 370 ITR 579/229 Taxman 10 (Mad.)(HC) CIT. Vs.Snram Indubai (2015) 370 ITR 579 (Mad.) (HC) CIT Vs.Coromandel Industries Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 586/230 Taxman 548 (Mad) (HC) Mrs. LilavatiSayani us. ITO (2014) 49 taxmann.com 579 (Mumbai - Trib.) ITO Vs. Rania Faleiro (Ms.) (2013) 142 ITD 769 (Panji) (Trib.) Thus, in view of the above facts and overwhelming position of law coupled with the clear legislative intention to insert the second proviso to Section 54EC only wef 01/04/2015 Le. A.Y.2015…

The ACIT. Circle-2(2), Ahmedbad vs. Rajendra Harjivandas Prajapati, Ahmedbad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 822/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.491/SRT/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The ITO, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABCPV1682L Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR 29/03/2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 06/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, per…

Challa Satish Reddy HUF, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 46/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 46/Hyd/2020 ( िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 )

For Appellant: Shri Sumitra Nandan, ARFor Respondent: 07-06-2022

Section 143(3)Section 54E

…013 itself but the actual transfer of shares took place on 20-03-2013 and, therefore, the investment made on 31-03-2013 was proper and after the transfer of the original asset. Nextly he contended that in the decisions reported in Coromandel Industries (2015) 370 ITR 586 (Mad) and CIT Vs. Jaichander 370 ITR 579 (Madras HC), the Hon'ble High Court held that there is ambiguity in the language of Section 54EC(1) of the Act inasmuch as it indicated that there is no cap on the investment to be made in bonds but the requirement is that within a period of six months, the investment of Rs. 50 Lakhs per assessment year co…

Om Prakash & Sons(HUF), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-56(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4934/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhua N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R

Section 54ESection 54F

…de by the assessee of the Long term capital gain is admittedly in two different Financial Years, but within 6 months from the date of the transfer of capital asset. In such a situation the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 586 (Mad.) clearly covers the issue in favour of the assessee. In view of this we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 54EC of the Act and grant the total deduction in that Section of Rs.1 crore. Accordingly, ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, appeal of the a…

Rohit Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 724/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 54E

…sessing Officer has strangely and obliquely stopped short of making observation/mention of the very recent Judgment of Honorable High Court of Madras dated December 16, 2014 in case of CIT v. Coromandal Industries Ltd. [2015] 56 taxmann.com 209/230 Taxman 548/370 ITR 586 (Mag.) placed before him for the reason best known to him only. This is to be understood that the restriction of Rs. 50,00,000/- in a financial year was placed for evenly distributing the invest into the capital gains bonds on continued basis throughout the year. Therefore, the alternative was put into operation were in the capital gain bonds are…

Santosh Mareshwar Rack VI, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2021/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2021/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Santosh Moreshwar Rack Vi बिधम/ Ito Ward 2(2) 3/37, Anand Ashray, Ram Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Road, Bhayander Tax(A)-1, Room No.30, B Wing, 6Th (W), Thane-401101. Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajfpr6634P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikhil A. Rajadhyaksha Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. That The Ito Ward 2(2), Thane & The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Thane Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating The Fact That This Matter Has Been Decided By The Itat A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil A. RajadhyakshaFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

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

…that the assessee was entitled to exemption of Rs. 1crore under section 54EC, in respect of investment of Rs. 50 lakhs made in two different financial years.” 9 A.Y.2012-13 4.1 Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 586 (Mad) held that assessee will be entitled for long term capital gain, even if, investment is falling under two financial years. In view of this, we are not in agreement with finding of CIT(A) on the ground that assessee has invested amounts in two financial years. We are aware the amendment on the issue is perspective not retrospective. Assessing…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Seema Sobti, New Delhi

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

ITA 5899/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54E

…ature with effect from 1.4.2015 in relation to the assessment year 2015- 16 and the subsequent years.” 4.6. The above decision was subsequently applied by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd., reported as [2015] 370 ITR 586 (Madras), wherein the facts were that a capital asset (land) was sold for Rs. 1,13,74,000/- on which capital gains were declared at Rs. 1,09,98,256/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 1 Crore was claimed as a deduction under section 54EC of the Act, by purchase of REC bonds worth Rs. 50 Lakhs each on 31.03.2009 and 30.04.2009. While dismissing the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Pradeep Sobti, New Delhi

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 5901/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Akshay Sobti, New Delhi

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 5900/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

Bimal Natubhai Desai, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 161/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu

Section 54E

…assessee’s claim by following the order 4 ITA No.161/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. C. Jaychander (supra) and in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Coromandel Industries reported as 370 ITR 586. The relevant extract of the findings of Tribunal on this issue reads as under : “11. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, which undoubtedly, is not the jurisdictional High Court but the said view has persuasive value and has been applied by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in another case and hence, we find no merit in t…

ACIT - 19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajanikant Dalal, Executor of the Estate of Late Shri Rameshchandra L Dalal, Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2701/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2701/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Rajnikant Dalal, Tax-19(3) [Executor Of The Estate Of Late Room No.206, 2Nd Floor बनाम/ Sh. Rameshchandra L. Dalal] Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road 201, C-Grand Paradia Apartment, Vs. Mumbai-400 007 A.K.Marg, Dadi Sheth Hill Mumbai-400 036 "थायीलेखासं./ Pan : Aacpd-0125-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54E

…rious judicial pronouncements where similar views have been expressed, the foremost of which of which are listed below:- (i) CIT Vs. C.Jaichander (370 ITR 579 Madras High Court) as followed subsequently by the same court in CIT Vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd. [370 ITR 586] (ii) M/s C.R.Developments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITA No. 4277/Mum 2012 Mumbai Tribunal) (iii) Dr.Kumar M.Dhawale Vs ACIT (ITA No. 7585/M/2012 Mumbai Tribunal) (iv) Mrs. Lilavati M.Sayani Vs ITO (49 Taxmann.com 579 Mumbai Tribunal) (v) Mrs. Rati Virwani Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 817/Mum/2013 Mumbai Tribunal) In view of the above stated position, we hold th…

ACIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sanjay Johri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4628/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blea.C.I.T – 2(3)(2) V. Shri Sanjay Johri Room No. 552, 5Th Floor 17, Sea Belle, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 62, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabpj 5819 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department By : Shri Rajat Mittal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 54E

…ent of ₹.50 Lakhs can be made. 2 Shri Sanjay Johri 2. At the outset the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue in appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd. [370 ITR 586] and the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of DCIT v. Nilesh Ramesh Ganjwala in ITA.No. 7112/Mum/2014 dated 27.04.2017. Referring to these decisions, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, it has been held that from the reading of section 54EC(1) and the first proviso, it is clear that the time limit for investment is six mon…

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

…two financial years separately but within period of six months from the date of sale of assets. This issue arose for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT Vs. C. Jaichandar (supra) and later in CIT Vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 586 (Mad) have laid down that the exemption granted under the proviso to section 54EC(1) of the Act should be construed not transactionwise but financial year wise, wherein if the assessee was able to invest sum of Rs.50 lakhs each in two different financial years, within period of six months from the date of transfer of capital assets, the said dedu…

Sri. Ramakrishna Theatres Limited, Udupi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Udupi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 152/BANG/2017[2013 - 14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Mallah Rao / Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 45Section 54Section 54E

…nvestment in REC bonds amounting to Rs.50 lakhs each, made on 31.01.2012 and 30.04.2012, aggregating to Rs.1 crore as exempt u/s.54EC of the Act. The Ld. AR relies upon the following judgments : ITA.152/Bang/2017 Page - 3 • CIT v. Coromandel Industries Ltd [370 ITR 586-Mad • Coromandel Industries Ltd v. ACIT [ITA.411/Mds/2013, dt.25.6.13] • Sriram Indubai v. ITO [51 (II) ITCL 449- Chennai Trib] The ground on which the AO made the disallowance was that the reliance placed by the assessee on the Board Circular No.359, dt.10.05.2008 was misplaced. It was also the case of the AO that as per Section 54EC, the inves…

Dci 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jagdish U. Thackersay, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1970/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal & Ms.Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar

Section 54E

…the ITAT. 6. I have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. 7. Upon careful consideration, I find that identical issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Coromandel Industries Limited [(2015) 370 ITR 586 (Mad.)]. In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court expounded as under:- (Head Notes only) “Section 54EC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, restricts to six months the time limit for the period of investment after the property has been sold. There is no cap on the investment to be made in bonds. The first proviso to section 54EC(1) specifies the quan…

Jagdish U. Thackersey, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed and that of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1444/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal & Ms.Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar

Section 54E

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

…e 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 lakhs and 50 lacs bonds on 30.04.2011. Thus, i…

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

…deduction u/s 54EC to the extent of Rs.50 lakhs in each financial year totalling to Rs.1 crore. This issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of C.Jaichander (supra) and again in CIT vs. Coromandel Industries Ltd. (370 ITR 586) wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court has laid down that the exemption granted under proviso to section 54EC(1) should be construed not transaction-wise but financial year-wise. Consequently, the assessee is entitled to exemption of Rs.50 lakhs in each financial year aggregating to Rs.1 crore. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble…

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

…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 the order of the authorities below on this issue. 6 6.3.1 We…