How many judgments cite CIT v. Gita Duggal?

77 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gita Duggal (357 ITR 153), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gita Duggal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54F, Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 46A, Section 54, Section 139(1).

CIT v. Gita Duggal

357 ITR 153High Court2013#1482 most cited

What is CIT v. Gita Duggal authority for?

For capital gains exemption under sections 54 and 54F, the term "a residential house" does not restrict the exemption to a single residential unit and can include multiple contiguous or combined residential units treated as one house.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gita Duggal · Section 54 · Section 54F · Section 45 · multiple residential units · single residential house · capital gains exemption · residential house definition · combined flats · contiguous units

Also reported as

30 Taxmann.com 230257 CTR 208214 Taxmann 51

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 234B Section 234C Section 46A Section 54 Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 45

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)long-term capital asset section 54ec section 13(2)indexed cost of acquisition section 54 circle rate section 54f date of transfer transfer of capital asset section 45 fair market value

Judgments citing CIT v. Gita Duggal

The ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad vs. Dr. Gunwant Kantilal Patel, Mehsana

ITA 504/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri S. S. Godara)

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya, A.R

Section 132(4)Section 54Section 54CSection 54ESection 54o

…on sale of property used for residence purpose, four residential flats cannot be construed as four residential houses for the purpose of Section 54, it has to be construed only as a residential house. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Gita Duggal 257 CTR 208 has held that the words “a residential house” appearing in section 54/54F cannot be construed to mean a single residential house since under section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, a singular includes Plural. We find that because of these and similar judicial decisions, the amendment has been brought in Section 54 by Finance Act, 2014 and the l…

Jayant Dattatraya Bhalerao, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 147/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 54

…to claim deduction u/s. 54 in respect of all the three 11 ITA Nos. 146, 147 & 148/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 flats. In support of his submissions, the ld. AR of assessee placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gita Duggal, 357 ITR 153 (Delhi); ii. Shri Narsing Gopal Patil & Ors. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1544/PUN/2012 for assessment year 2008-09 decided on 31-05- 2013. 15.1 The ld. AR made an alternate prayer that without prejudice to his first prayer, if the assessee is not found eligible for claiming deduction in respect of all the three flats, the deduction u/s. 54 may be granted…

Abhijit Ashok Bhalerao, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 146/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 54

Ashok Dattatraya Bhalerao, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 148/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 54

George Britto Jesudas, Thane vs. ITO 2(3), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Mr. George Britto Jesudas Vs. Ito – 2 (3), B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It A-2, Prakriti Building Shrishti Complex, Park, Road No.16-Z, Sector 5A, Mira Road (East) Near Ambika Nagar Thane – 401 107 Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane – 400 604 Pan/Gir No. Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…house properties. Following judicial pronouncements support this proposition.  D. Ananda Basappa - 309 ITR 329- Kar. (against which the department's appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed),  K.G. Rukminiamma (Kar), 331 ITR, 211 and  CIT vs. Geeta Duggal 257 CTR 208 (Del). 4 Mr. George Britto Jesudas 8. It was further submitted that all the above decisions support the contention of the assessee, the flats were either adjacent or in the same or one building, though on different floors, so as to constitute a residential house. It was further submitted that the logic and ratio decidendi of the said decisions i…

Ram Mohan Rai, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 234BSection 54

…llowing the decision of the Hon‘ble Madras high court in G.Chinnadurai v. Income-tax Officer, ( supra) and also the decision of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Geeta Dugal 2013] 30 taxmann.com 230 (Delhi)/[2013] 214 Taxman 51 (Delhi)/[2013] 357 ITR 153 (Delhi)/[2013] 257 CTR 208 (Delhi) we hold that assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54 of the act with respect to both the properties, amounting to Rs. 7547650/- as claimed by the assessee. In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pro…

Girija Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO 35 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 283/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhsmt. Girija Singh Ito-35(1)-4, 303, Ebony, Tower No.1, C-12, Bandra The Orchard Residency, 146, Mumbai. Vs. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086 Pan: Abgps5477E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag (AR)For Respondent: Mrs. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54

…which are adjacent to each other i.e. flat No.303 and 304. The residential units are acquired after sale of house property in Delhi. The amendment brought on the statute book is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2015. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153(Del.) held that merely because a residential house consists of several units with independent residential units would not take away the benefit of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Further the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s V.R. Karpagam (supra) held that amendment in section 54F came into effect only from 01.04.2015. Prior to said amendment, it…

Pradipkumar P. Kanakia, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir13(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7688/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pradipkumar Purshottam Dcit, Kanakia, Circle-13(2), बनाम/ C/O- Pratap Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18, Steel Yard House, Iron Mumbai-400020 Market, Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai-400009 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Afvpk8451P

Section 54

…al independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Gita Duggal (2013) 357 ITR 153 (Del.), CIT vs D. Ananda Basappa (2009) 309 ITR 329 (Karn.)(para-3 & 6) and CIT vs Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211(Karn.)(Para 6 & 12 Pradipkumar Purushottam Kanakia 10) supports the case of the assessee. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Gita Duggal (supra) affirmed the stand of the Tribunal taken in ITA NO.3613/Del./2010,…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Mushtaq I. Macchiwala, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1563/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-19(3), Shri Mushtaq I.Macchiwala, Room No.305, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ 101, Shree Prasad, Plot Piramal Chambers, Parel, No.517, 35Th Road, Tps-Ii, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aakpm5715C Shri Purushottam Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Prakash Pandit

Section 54

…al independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Gita Duggal (2013) 357 ITR 153 (Del.), CIT vs D. Ananda Basappa (2009) 309 ITR 329 (Karn.)(para-3 & 6) and CIT vs Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211(Karn.)(Para 6 & 10) supports the case of the assessee. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Gita Duggal (supra) affirmed the stand of the Tribunal taken in ITA NO.3613/Del./2010, order dated 07/06/2011. Thus, the a…

Sh. Brij Bhushan Tayal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3272/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. AshishFor Respondent: None

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

…the exemption only to the extent of one residential house as section 54 contains the words 'a residential house'.(Pg.22 Para 1st) 5 13.ln this context assessee placed his reliance on the judgement of jurisdictional Delhi HC in the case of CIT Vs Geeta Duggal 357 ITR 153 (2013) which reads as under: "9. There could also be another angle. Section 54/54F uses the expression "a residential house". The expression used is not "a residential unit". This is a new concept introduced by the assessing officer into the section. Section 54/54F requires the assessee to acquire a "residential purchased by the assessee was too…

Mahesh Kumar Poddar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1511/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 54

…of the Tribunal: 1. CIT & Anr VS Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 (Kar) 3 I.T.A. No.1511/Mum/2016 2. CIT vs Anand Basappa 309 ITR 329 (Kar) 3. CIT vs Khoochand M Makhija 223 Taxmann 189 (Kar) 4. CIT vs SAyed Ali Adil 352 ITR 418 (AP) 5. CIT vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153 (Del) 6. CIT vs V.R. Karpagam 373 ITR 127 (Mad) 7. Dy.CI vs Jai Trikanand Rao 149 ITD 112 (ITAT, Mum) 8. Girdhar Mohanani vs ITO ITA No.4591/Mum/2013& 4650/Mum/2013 3. Per contra, the ld.Dr relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 4. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and judgements relied upon by the ld.counsel before…

Vishal Dutt, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 878/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-(DR)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “F” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), v. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAGPD 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Neelesh Bajaj Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-(DR) सुनवाई क" तार"…

ITO 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5798/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Ward-13(2)(2), Flat No.3804, 38Th Floor, बनाम/ R. No.477, 4Th Floor, Shreepati Arcade, A-Wing, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A.K.Marg, Nana Chowk, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400036 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadpg0200D

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…ital gains are to be treated as having arisen. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Sardar Mal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Madras), CIT vs S Uday kumar (2012) 345 ITR 389 (Karnataka), CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharyaji (2012) 342 ITR 74 (Guwahati ) and CIT vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153 (Del.), CIT vs P R Sehshadri 329 ITR 377 (Karn.), CIT vs Rajiv Shukla 334 ITR 138(Del.), CIT vs Ashok Kumar Rallhan 360 ITR 575 (Del.) supports our view. There is categorical finding in the impugned order that the assessee sold the assessee on 251/12/2008 and utilized the same for purchase of new asset on 15/12/2009 i.e. before date of furnishing…

ACIT CC 25, Mumbai vs. Parle Bottling P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1209/MUM/2014[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2015AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year- 1998-99 Acit, M/S Parle Bottling Pvt. Ltd. Cc-25, Room No.404, Western Express Highway, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri (East), Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-4000099 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacp8417H Shri Arvind Kumar-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Firoze Ahdhyarajina

Section 132Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…iew has been taken by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri, (2007) 292 ITR (AT) 1 (Mumbai). 12. The issue raised by the AO is also covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gita Duggal 257 CTR 208, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under:- 19 M/s Parle Bottling P. Ltd. “Sec. 54/54F uses the expression "a residential house". The expression used is not "a residential unit". This is a new concept introduced by the AO into the section. Sec. 54/54F requires the assessee to acquire a "residential house" and so long as the assessee acquire…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Gopal V Gorwani, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 421/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Harshad Vengurlekar

Section 147Section 54

…t used by the assessee and his family members since it has a common kitchen. For this proposition, he relied upon the following case laws:– Late Gopal V. Gorwani 13 i) CIT v. Smt. KG Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Kar.); and ii) CIT v/s Geeta Duggal [2013] 357 ITR 153 (Del.). 15. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. We have also examined the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee. As could be seen, the Assessing Officer has disallowed assessee’s claim under section 54 towards investment in acquiring his brother’s share in a sepa…

Late Shri Mahavir Prasad Gupta Through L.H Shri Sushil Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 20(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2783/MUM/2014[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2015AY 1988-89

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 1988-89 Late Shri Mahavir Gupta Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Shri Ward-12(3)(1), बनाम/ Sushil Gupta, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 161-C, Mittal Tower, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aalpg1065E

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…iew has been taken by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri, (2007) 292 ITR (AT) 1 (Mumbai). 12. The issue raised by the AO is also covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gita Duggal 257 CTR 208, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “Sec. 54/54F uses the expression "a residential house". The expression used is not "a residential unit". This is a new concept introduced by the AO into the section. Sec. 54/54F requires the assessee to acquire a "residential house" and so long as the assessee acquires a building, which may be con…

Neela P. Doshi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 9, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6859/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year 2009-10 Smt. Neela P. Doshi, The Asst. Comm. Of Income Acme Ghar, 19 K.D. Road, Tax, बनाम/ Ville Parle (W), Central Circle-9, Vs. Mumbai-400056 Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpd6490Q

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…e Special Bench of the Mumbai 19 Smt. Neela P. Doshi Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri, (2007) 292 ITR (AT) 1 (Mumbai). 12. The issue raised by the AO is also covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gita Duggal 257 CTR 208, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “Sec. 54/54F uses the expression "a residential house". The expression used is not "a residential unit". This is a new concept introduced by the AO into the section. Sec. 54/54F requires the assessee to acquire a "residential house" and so long as the assessee acquires a building, which may be con…