How many judgments cite CIT v. H.K. Kapoor?

34 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. H.K. Kapoor (234 ITR 753), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. H.K. Kapoor come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54, Section 54F, Section 143(3), Section 45, Section 143(2), Section 234B.

CIT v. H.K. Kapoor

234 ITR 753High Court1998#3547 most cited

What is CIT v. H.K. Kapoor authority for?

Construction of a new house can commence before the sale of the original asset for availing exemption under section 54 or 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v H.K. Kapoor · section 54 · section 54F · construction of new house · commencement of construction · sale of asset · capital gains exemption · date of sale

Also reported as

150 CTR 128

Sections most often in play

Section 54 Section 54F Section 143(3)Section 45 Section 143(2)Section 234B Section 234C Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)long-term capital asset section 54f date of transfer section 54 section 45 long term capital gains long term capital gain scrutiny assessment transfer previous year section 139

Judgments citing CIT v. H.K. Kapoor

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2962/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

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

…P a g e | 1 Azizul Ghani (AY: 2015-16) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Azizul Ghani Vs. ITO, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAJPG7737K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv.. Department by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dat…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ANIL REDDY YEDUGURY SANDHINTI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

ITA 2145/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 54F

…on 54F because construction of the house had commenced before sale of the shares i.e. on 17 th September, 2008. 6. Commissioner (Appeals) and the tribunal have relied upon decisions of Allahabad High Court and Karnataka High Court in CIT v H. K. Kapoor (1998) 234 ITR 753(All) and CIT v JR Subramaya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571/(1986) 28 Taxman 578(Kar). These two cases deal with interpretation of section 54 of the Act. The said section is pari materia in section 54F. The only distinction being that section 54 applies to investment in a new house where the original asset sold was/is residential property and provision o…

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

ITA 376/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…esidential house on\nthe same is statutorily required to be subsequent to the date of the\nsale of the capital asset is supported by the judgment of the\nHon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of\nIncome Tax vs. H.K. Kapoor (Decd.) [1998] 234 ITR 753 (A11),\nwhich was rendered in the context of the pari materia provisions\nof Section 54 of the Act. The indulgence of the Hon'ble High Court\nwas, inter alia, sought for adjudicating the following substantial\nquestion of law:\n\"2. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of\nthe case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was\ncorrect in law in…

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 841/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…our view would also be eligible for quantifying the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54 of the Act. We find that a similar issue had come up before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. H.K. Kapoor (Decd.) [1998] 234 ITR 753 (All). The indulgence of the Hon'ble High Court was, inter alia, sought for adjudicating the following substantial question of law: “2. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for availing of the benefits under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is not…

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 210/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…njay Gulabchand Gupta ITA no.210/Nag./2023 original asset. This issue is now no longer a res integra in view of several authoritative pronouncements from High Courts and Tribunals. Assessee relies on the following decisions besides others: CIT VS H.K. Kapoor 234 ITR 753 (All) (1998) CIT VS J.R. Subramanya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571 (Karnataka) Paramjitkaur VS Income Tax Officer (ITAT) Chandigarh in Appeal No. ITA 717/Chd/2017 Dt. 28.09.17 Asst CIT VS Subhash Sevaram Bhavnami (ITA No.928/Ahd/2012 Dt. 29.6.12) 23 Taxmann.com 94 Kapil Kumar Agrawl VS DCIT Gurgaon in ITA/2630/Del/201 Order Dt. 30.4.19 CIT VS Bhart Mish…

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

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

ITA 324/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…Bhailalbhai N. Patel vs. DCITITA 37/Ahd/2014; ➤ACIT vs. Subhash S. Bhavnani - (2012) 23 taxmann.com 94 (Ahd); ➤ Kapil Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT-(2019) 178 ITD 255 (Del); ➤CIT vs. J. R. Subramanya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571 (Karnataka); ➤CIT vs. H. K. Kapoor-(1998) 234 ITR 753 (Allahabad); ➤CIT vs. Bharti Mishra-(2014) 41 taxmann.com 50 (Del); 6.1. Accordingly, Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act to the extent of investment made after date of transfer of original asset. Since the overall investment of Rs.77,25,000/- namely cost of…

BASABDUTTA DUTTA. ,BANKURA vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1), KENDUADIHI, , KENDUADIHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(VII)

…nounced on 17.06.2008 5. The Judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT and Another vs Sambandam Udaykumar vide [2012] 345 ITR 389 (Karn) pronounced on 15.02.2012 6. The Judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs H.K. Kapoor (Decd.) vide [1998] 234 ITR 753 (All) pronounced on 12.08.1997 7. The Judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs J.R. Subramanya Bhat vide [1987] 165 ITR 571 (Karn) pronounced on 09.06.1986 8. The Judgement of the Ld. ITAT, Delhi in Kapil Kumar Agarwal vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaoon in ITA No.2630/Del/2015 pronounced on 30.04.2019 9. The Judgement of Hon'ble Madras Hig…

PRANAV BHAWNATH JHA,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3464/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhpranav Bhawnath Jha Vs. Int. Tax Ward 3(1)(1) A-1103, Lokhandwala Air India Building, Residency, L Papan Marg Mumbai Maharashtra – 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abupj5391G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Digesh RambhiaFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 54

…Tehsildar v. ITO [2017] 88 taxmann.com 275 (Mumbai - Trib.) II. CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 571 (Kar.) III. CIT v. Bharti Mishra [2014] 41 taxmann.com 50 (Delhi) IV. CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (2000) 244 ITR 352 V. CIT v. H.K. Kapoor [1998] 234 ITR 753 (AII.) VI. Asstt.CIT v. Subhash Sevaram Bhavnani [2012] 23 taxmann.com 94 (Ahm. Tri.) The ld. Counsel also contended that the date of construction of the property was relevant not the date of commencement of the property in the case of the assessee. P a g e | 4 Pranav Bhawnath Jha Vs. Int. Tax Ward 3(1)(1) 5. On the other hand, the ld. D.R conte…

PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 234ASection 54

…earned by assessee, the assessee is entitled to exempt u/s 54F of the Act. Similar view has taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of ITO Vs. K C Gopalan (107 Taxman 591). 8. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. H.K. Kapoor (234 ITR 753) held that exemption on capital gains u/s 54 of the Act could be allowed notwithstanding the fact that the construction of new house had begun before the sale of the old house while holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: - “2. The facts are that the assessee and his brother owned a residential house at Golf Link in moiety. The sa…

DINESHBHAI JIVANBHAI SANSPARA,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 435/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 54

…the deduction so claimed. Therefore, it 435/SRT/2018 AY.2013-14 Dineshbhai J Sanspara cannot be said that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. H K Kapoor 150 CTR 128 (All) 1998 has also observed that “Exemption on capital gains under section 54 cannot be refused merely on the ground that construction of new house had begun before the sale of old house. TS-51 ITAT-2015 (HYD)-O has also held that “Date of completion of construction and not date of commencement of construction relevant for purpose of Sec.54 when…

SHANKAR RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 18(5), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1868/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No.: 1868/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri. Shankar Ramakrishnan, Income Tax Officer, A1-55, Flat No. 4A, 4Th Floor, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -18(5), Shanthi Colony, Chennai & Anna Nagar, Commissioner (Appeals) -15, Chennai – 600 040. Chennai. [Pan: Afqpr 2874E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Indira, R.K. Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020

For Appellant: Ms. Indira, R.K. FCAFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT

Section 54

…e benefit u/s 54 is not allowable to the assessee because the construction have been started before the sale of old asset. In this regard, he relied on three High Court decisions viz,, CIT vs T.R. Suramanla Bhat 165 ITR 571 (1987) Karnataka, CIT Vs H.K,Kapoor 234 ITR 753 (1998) Allahabad and CIT vs Bharti Mishra IT(Appeal) No. 567/2013 (Delhi). All these High Courts' have unanimously held that, for eligibility of the benefit u/s, 54, the fact that the construction of the new asset had commenced before the sale of the old asset is immaterial, and what is material is only that it must have been completed within thr…

NATTA SURYA RAO,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 404/VIZ/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.404/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Natta Suryarao Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Late Manganna Ward-1 D.No.2-20-5 Tanuku Ambati Vari Street Old Town, Tanuku [Pan :Ahrpn 9648M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri.Y.Ratnakar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri.Y.Ratnakar, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR

Section 148Section 45(2)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.404/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Natta Suryarao Vs. Income Tax Officer S/o Late Manganna Ward-1 D.No.2-20-5 Tanuku Ambati Vari Street Old Town, Tanuku [PAN :AHRPN 9648M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri.Y.Ratnakar, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर स…

SHANTANU KUMAR BOSE ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 33(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3051/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 54ESection 54F

…hich construction is to be carried out should have been purchased within one year before the sale of the old property. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Bharti Mishra [2014] 41 TAxmann.com 50 (Delhi) 2. CIT(A) Vs. H. K. Kapoor [1998] 234 ITR 753 (Allahabad) 3. Tarun Jalali Vs. DDIT- ITa No. 2376/Del/2014 (Del. Trib.) 4. B. B. Sarkar Vs. CIT(A) [1981] 7 Taxman 239 (Cal.) 5. Mrs. Rahana Siraj Vs. CIT(A) [2015] 58 taxmann.com 333 (Karnataka) 6. Rustom Homi Vakil Vs. ACIT [2016] 69 Taxmann.com 42 (Trib.- Mumbai) 7. Mrs. Gulshanbanoo R. Mukhi Vs. JCIT [2002] 83 ITD 649 (Trib.- Mum) 8. CBDT Ci…

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

…two years from the date of sale of the old building, he was entitled to relief under section 54. ” 3.11. The Assessee also wishes to place reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT v. U.K. Kapoor, reported as [1998] 234 ITR 753 (Allahabad). In the said case, the facts were as follows: assessee therein sold a residential house on 10.07.1963, whereas construction of the new asset was commenced on 10.03.1963. The claim for deduction u/s 54 of the Act was rejected by the concerned AO on the ground that construction of the new asset was commenced before sale / transfer o…

VARUN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-47(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1388/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Akarsh Garg, Advocate, CA

Section 54

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Shri Varun Seth ACIT 1, Under Hill Road, Civil Lines, Cir-47(1) Vs. New Delhi-110 054. New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Akarsh Garg, Advocate, CA Shri Karan Kumar, CA Assessee by : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26/02/2019 Date of 14/05/2019 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 15.01.2019, passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)- 16, New Delhi,…

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

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 54Section 54F

…g the decisions of Allahabad & Karnataka High Court directly on the subject observed as follows vide para 6 &7: 6. Commissioner (Appeals) and the tribunal have relied upon decisions of Allahabad High Court and Karnataka High Court in CIT v. H.K. Kapoor [1998] 234 ITR 753 (Alt.) and CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 571/[1986] 28 Taxman 578 (Kar). These two cases deal with interpretation of Section 54 of the Act. The said Section is pari materia to Section 54F. The only distinction being that Section 54 applies to investment in a new house where the original asset sold was/is residential property and prov…

DR. RAJINDER KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4089/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Rajneesh Behari Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54o

…the payments made prior to the sale of the old property or that the construction of new house had taken before the sale of old house. For this principle, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs H.K. Kapoor, 234 ITR 753 (All). 7. He further submitted that when the assessee invested the amount received by way of capital gains before the end of three years stipulated u/s 54 of the Act and if the possession of the property is not delivered within 4 three years for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, denial is unjustified. He placed reliance on the deci…

DR. KUSHAGRA KATARIYA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1452/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 54Section 54F

…rom the date of arising of capital gain would be available for deduction. He relied on the following case laws, quoting extensively from the judgements and head notes: • B.B. Sarkar vs. CIT 132 ITR150 Calcutta • Commissioner of Income Tax vs. H.K. Kapoor (234 ITR 753) Allahabad. • Commissioner of Income Tax vs. SambandamUdaykumar 19 taxmann.com 17 Karnataka • Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashok Kumar Ralhan (46 taxmann.com 416) • Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharti Mishra 41 taxmann.com 50 Delhi • Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Smt. B.S. Shanthkumari 60 taxmann.com 74 Karnataka • Rusto…

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2