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.

66

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 54Section 54FSection 148Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 54f(1)section 90aunexplained jewellerysection 24(b)under-reporting of incomesection 54fsection 54bsection 80cforeign tax creditroyalty incomewithholding taxsection 54

Judgments citing CIT v. Gurnam Singh

Virender Kumar Sharma, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-67(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5150/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2013-14 Virender Kumar Sharma, Ito, Ward- 67(1), 1240, Sector-37, Arun Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 54

…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. 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 Wahal (s…

Mrs.Kavita Tiwari, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

ITA 1916/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazmrs. Kavita Tiwari, D-202, Adarsh Residency, 8Th Block, Jayanagar, Sangam Circle, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan – Acvpt1583G. Appellant By : Shri R.E Balasubramaniam, C.A Respondent By : Shri M.K Biju, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -10-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramaniam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M.K Biju, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘C’ BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mrs. Kavita Tiwari, D-202, Adarsh Residency, 8th Block, Jayanagar, Sangam Circle, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Bengaluru. . Respondent PAN – ACVPT1583G. Appellant by : Shri R.E Balasubramaniam, C.A Respondent by : Shri M.K Biju, JCIT Date of Hearing : 16-08-2017 Date of Pronouncement : -10-2017 O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-7, Bangalore dat…

Shri Sukhram Mukati, Indore vs. The ITO WD-3(3), Indore

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

ITA 409/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 143Section 54BSection 68Section 69Section 69A

…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…

Kalpana Sundar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-8(1), Chennai

ITA 2153/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2153/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. Kalpana Sundar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 4/3, Sri Janakas, 2Nd Cross Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(1), Street, East Kamakodi Nagar, Chennai. Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. [Pan:Cnvps4092J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 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) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of Tax Exemption Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54FSection 64

…cumstances in an identical issue, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271 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, 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 income on 31.07.2007 for the year 2007-08 declaring taxable income of Rs. 62,41,068. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short…

Sri. G.A. Ramaswamy Reddy, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 286/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri G.A.Ramaswamy Reddy, No.173, Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore. … Appellant Pan:Aanhr 4650 L Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan , CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 147Section 234Section 54BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri G.A.Ramaswamy Reddy, No.173, Gunjur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore. … Appellant PAN:AANHR 4650 L Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan , CA Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 27/06/2016 Date of pronouncement : 20/07/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A)-III, Bangalore, dated…

CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora

ITA - 1106 / 2011HC Delhi17 Sept 2011
Section 54F

…. 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. 12. We, thus, answer the question in favour of the assessee and dismiss this appeal with cost quantified @ `10,000/-. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (M.L. MEHTA)…