How many judgments cite CIT v. Gurnam Singh?

66 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gurnam Singh (327 ITR 278), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gurnam Singh come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 54, Section 54F, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

CIT v. Gurnam Singh

327 ITR 278High Court2010#1723 most cited

What is CIT v. Gurnam Singh authority for?

For capital gains exemption under Section 54F, the new residential house is not required to be purchased exclusively in the assessee's own name; acquisition in joint names or in the name of a spouse qualifies for the exemption. This principle also applies to Section 54 due to their pari materia nature.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gurnam Singh · Section 54F · Section 54 · capital gains exemption · new residential house · not in assessee's own name · joint ownership · spouse name property · exclusive ownership not required · reinvestment benefit

Also reported as

170 Taxmann 160

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 54 Section 54F Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 23 Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 54f(1)section 90a unexplained jewellery section 24(b)under-reporting of income section 54f section 54b section 80c foreign tax credit royalty income withholding tax section 54

Judgments citing CIT v. Gurnam Singh

Sakharam Bhondve, Pune vs. Income Tax Office, Ward -9 (1), Pune

ITA 951/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 48Section 54B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य मामला” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.951/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Sakharam Bhondve, At Post- Ravet, Tal.- Haveli, Pune-412101. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant PAN : ABDPB9893J बनाम / V/s. ITO, Ward-9(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Ms. Archana Shetty Revenue by : Shri Prashant Mahajan सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13.11.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2020 आदेश /…

Balak Ram, Ghaziabad vs. ITO), Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad

The Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8318/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Ekta Vishnoi, Sr. DR

Section 54Section 54F

…a) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to section 54 of the Act, that section was in pari materia with section 54F. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Gurnam Singh [2010] 327 ITR 278 (P&H) in which the same view was taken with reference to section 54F was also noticed by this court. It thus appears to us that-the predominant judicial view, including that of this court, is 'that for the purposes of section 54F, the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name nor is it necessary that it should be…

Jagjit Singh, Panipat vs. Pr.CIT, Karnal

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 2777/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 54B

…another agricultural land and it is not material in 10 ITA.No.2777/Del./2018 Shri Jagjit Singh, Panipat. whose name the land is Registered. The assessee gets support from decisions of various courts quoted as under :- (a) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court 327 ITR 278 in the case of CIT Ludhiana Vs Curnam Singh. (b) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 214 Taxman 287 in the case of CIT XII vs Kamal Wahal (c) Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 342 ITR 38 in the case of CIT Vs Ravinder Kumar Arora. (d) Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench ITA No 21 (Asr) / 2015 in the case of Dy CIT Vs Jit Singh. In all the above mentioned cases the…

A Vijayakumari, Pattukkottai vs. ITO, Ncw-1, Thanjavur

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

ITA 3435/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3435/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. A. Vijayakumari, The Income Tax Officer, No. 25, Pillaiyar Koil St., Pattukottai, Vs. Ward 1, Thanjavur District. Thanjavur. [Pan:Aacpv3947K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 27.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On Confirmation Of Both Income From Long Term Capital Gains & Short Term Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 54

…sessee by the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kamal Wahal (supra), Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Courts in the case of CIT v. Gurnam Singh [2010] 327 ITR 278 and moreover, the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT v. Jennifer Bhide 349 ITR 80. Under these facts and circumstances, the long term capital gains taxed by the Assessing Officer stands deleted. 6. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee relates to levy of short term capital gains. Vide another sale deed docu…

Shri Rutul M. Dave, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, Int. Taxn., Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meena, Sr.D.R

…A No.2627/Ahd/2017 Shri Chitrang M. Dave vs. DCIT Asst.Year - 2013-14 said section is pari materia of s. 54F(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh (2008) 218 CTR (P&H) 674 : (2008) 6 DTR (P&H) 83 : (2010) 327 ITR 278 (P&H) took the same view while discussing the provisions of s. 54 of the Act which is again pari materia of s. 54F(1) of the Act. 12. We, thus, answer the question in favour of the assessee and dismiss this appeal with cost quantified @ Rs. 10,000." 5.1. We find that the case of the assessee is covered in favour of assessee by the judgment disc…

Shri Kailash Bhagwan Choudhary, Indore vs. The ITO 2(3), Indore

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

ITA 68/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 54BSection 54F

…ld that investment in the name of son, wife etc. is also eligible for claim of exemption u/s 54B of the Act provided the investment is out of sale consideration received on sale of original asset notably the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh (P&H) 327 ITR 278 (2010), CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora 342 ITR 38 (Delhi) (2012) & DIT Vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide 15 Taxmann.com 82 (Kar)(2011). It is also argued by the appellant that if two views of possible the view favourable to the appellant is to be adopted. However, it is seen that AO has noted that the investment in purchase of new asset has been made beyond…

Kanaiyalal Muljibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.649/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR with Shri Mehul Talera, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…a) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, that Section was in pari materia with Section 54F. The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Gurnam Singh [2010] 327 ITR 278/[2008] 170 Taxman 160 in which the same view was taken with reference to Section 54F was also noticed by this Court. 9. It thus appears to us that the predominant judicial view, including that of this Court, is that for the purposes of Section 54F, the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name nor is it necessary…

Bhima Dada Kharate, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Nashik

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 55A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1596/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balu Vitthal Kharate, H. No.894/3, Gandharvawadi, Near Forest Nursery Canal, Makhmalabad, Nashik-422013 PAN : BEYPK5261C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1598/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhima Dada Kharate H. No.894/3, Gandharvawadi, Nea…

Balu Vitthal Kharate, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1596/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 55A

Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2692/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri H.R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryawamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.1, Aabhran, I Main Road, Ward 5(2)(3), N R Colony, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 019. PAN: AHNPP 4864F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.R. Suresh, CA Respondent by : Shri Vikas Suryawamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2019 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President This appeal by the assessee is against the ord…

Sri Dheeraj Govindappa, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 2724/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2724/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Dheeraj Govindappa, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, 1183, 3Rd Cross, 3Rd Stage, Ward – 4[2][2], Hal Layout, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Bpqpg 3893 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Satya Sai Rath, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Sai Rath, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54F

…CIT Vs. Natrajan, (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad), though this case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, the said Section is pari materia of Section 54F(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh, (2010) 327 ITR 278 took the Page 8 of 9 same view while discussing the provisions of Section 54 of the Act which is again pari materia of Section 54F(1) of the Act. 12. We, thus, answer the question in favour of the assessee and dismiss this appeal with cost quantified @ `10,000/-." 10. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shri Kamal…

Smt. Kancharlapalli Hemalatha, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Bcmpk6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Malik, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54F

…is no warrant for giving too strict an interpretation to the word "assessee" as that would frustrate the object of granting exemption. Based on the above judgments and another ruling (CIT Vs, Natrajan (2007) 287 IT!? 271 (Mad) and CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh (2010) 327 ITR 278), the Honourable HC held that the conditions stipulated in section 54F 13 I.T.A. No.322 /Viz/2016 Smt. Kancharlapalli Hemalatha, Vijayawada of the Act was fulfilled by the taxpayer and taxpayer was entitled for benefit of Section 54F of the Act with reference to the total investment of Rs. 3,28,15,000/-. 11.The issue regarding whether the inve…

Kumaravelu Varadharajan @ K.Varadharajan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 617/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.617/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Kumaravelu Varadharajan @ K. The Income Tax Officer, Varadharajan, No. 11/1, Narasimma Vs. International Taxation Ii(2), Nagar, 1St Street, Kodungaiyur, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 112. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Abwpv4091P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Gopikrishna, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Gopikrishna, JCIT

Section 48Section 54Section 54E

…hased exclusively in his name. 6.2 Further, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. V. Natarajan (supra) and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Courts in the case of CIT v. Gurnam Singh [2010] 327 ITR 278, in the case of DIT v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide, where the assessee claimed deduction under section 54 and 54EC of the Act since the assessee purchased the new asset in the joint names of herself and her husband, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has observed and held as under: “2. The assessee is a non-resident individual. She filed her return of inco…

Allan Emanuel Fernandes, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2493/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.M.Rajapurkar

Section 54F

…ase of new asset in the name of wife. Thus, there is no bar in purchasing the new asset in the name of spouse for being eligible to claim exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh, reported as 327 ITR 278 allowed exemption u/s.54B of the Act where the assessee had purchased agricultural land jointly in the name of his son after investing capital gains. Thus, a plain reading of provisions of section 54F and perusal of decisions discussed above, we find that the assessee is eligible for claiming benefit of section 54F after having invested capit…

Shri Chitrang M Dave, Vadodara vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2627/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.DR

Section 54Section 54F

…54 of the Act, the Shri Chitrang M. Dave vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2013-14 said section is pari materia of s. 54F(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh (2008) 218 CTR (P&H) 674 : (2008) 6 DTR (P&H) 83 : (2010) 327 ITR 278 (P&H) took the same view while discussing the provisions of s. 54 of the Act which is again pari materia of s. 54F(1) of the Act. 12. We, thus, answer the question in favour of the assessee and dismiss this appeal with cost quantified @ Rs. 10,000.” 5.1. We find that the case of the assessee is covered in favour of assessee by the judgment discu…

Smt. Uma Nandwani, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1413/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shobhit TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54Section 54F

…CIT Vs. Natrajan, (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad), though this case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, the said Section is pari materia of Section 54F(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh, (2010) 327 ITR 278 took the same view while discussing the provisions of Section 54 of the Act which is again pari materia of Section 54F(1) of the Act.” 8. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court has held that even if the property has been purchased by the assessee by his own fund and simply because he has included the name of his wife and the property has been purchased in…

The ITO, 2(5), Indore vs. Late Shri Ram Prasad Banglewala L/H Shri Mahesh Banglewala, Indore

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 40/IND/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No.40/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Late Shri Ram Prasad Banglewala L/H Shri 2(5), Mahesh Banglewala, Indore. 930, Bijalpur, Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Awqpb0658P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 31.05.2018

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

…ld that investment in the name of son, wife etc. is also eligible for claim of exemption u/s 54B of the Act provided the investment is out of sale consideration received on sale of original asset notably the decisions in the case of CIT Vs Gurnam Singh, (P&H) 327 ITR 278(2010), CIT Vs Ravinder Kumar Arora,342 ITR 38(Delhi)(2012) & DIT Vs Mrs. Jennifer Bhide 15 Taxmann.com 82 -: 8 :- Late Shri. Ram Pd. Banglewala (Kar)(2011). It is also argued by the appellant that if two views are possible the view favourable to the appellant is to be adopted. The total investment in purchase of the new asset is Rs. 18929432/- w…

Om Prakash Rasoria, Alwar vs. ITO, Alwar

ITA 46/JPR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CA and Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Seema Meena,JCIT - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 147Section 54B

…fied and correct in making the addition on account of disallowance of investment made in name of wife of Rs. 15,23,260/- as detailed in assessment order although this will be allowed as deduction u/s 54B as upheld in following cases. (i) CIT vs Gurnam Singh, 327 ITR 278 (2008), P&H (ii) ITO vs Saraswati Ramanathan, 300 ITR 410 (2007), ITAT Del. (iii) Tribunal Judgement of Bench ‘1’ (2010) – copy of judgement has been submitted earlier with ld. CIT(A) and since it was well explained and supported with full details at the time of appeal. 2. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in disallowing the investment made in con…

Smt Chatru Bai, Jaipur vs. ITO, Kota

ITA 478/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 54B

…It was seen that the assessee has purchased the property in the name of her sons, Shri Jitendra Kumar Kushwah and Shri Hanuman Prasad Kushwah. The assessee placed its reliance on various judgements, however, the facts of the cases were different, in the case (327 ITR 278), land was purchased in joint name whereas in the case of assessee, the land was purchased solely in the name of assessee's sons. The other cases were not related to section 54B. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the assessee can claim relief u/s 54B only when the land was purchased in his/ her name, therefore, the assessee was not entitled for…

Ganesh Chawla, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 452/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Podar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena

Section 54F