CIT v. H.K. Kapoor

234 ITR 753High Court1998#3501 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.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 54Section 54FSection 143(3)Section 45Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)long-term capital assetsection 54fdate of transfersection 54section 45long term capital gainslong term capital gainscrutiny assessmenttransferprevious yearsection 139

Judgments citing CIT v. H.K. Kapoor

Anurag Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2626/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita No. 2626/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anurag Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O R B Tyagi, Flat No. 303, Ward-1(1), Super Tech, Avant Grade Plot Ghaziabad No. 1, Sector-5, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpt6848P Assessee By : Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prasar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.01.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D/SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member ITA No. 2626/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anurag Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/o R B Tyagi, Flat No. 303, Ward-1(1), Super Tech, Avant Grade Plot Ghaziabad No. 1, Sector-5, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAGPT6848P Assessee by : Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prasar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an ap…

Sri Pradeep Singh Gurung, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Siliguri

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 374/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 54Section 54(1)

…order to come to such a conclusion, we take note of the ratio decidendi laid by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. J. R. Subramaniam Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. H. K. Kapoor (Deceased) 234 ITR 753, Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of ITO Vs. K. C. Gopalan 107 Taxman 591 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharti Mishra, ITA No. 567 of 2013 and the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Vidyasagar Dontineni, ITA Nos. 632 & 1238/Hyd/2013 for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 dated 28.01.2015. Thus the appeal of th…

Subhadra Raju, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1035/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…[2014] 41 taxmann.com.50(Delhi). Further, High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs.J.R.Subramanya Bhat in [1986] 28 Taxman 578 (Kar.) has taken a similar view, which was in turn followed by Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. H.K.Kapoor in [1998] 234 ITR 753 (Allahabad). Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Telangana in the case of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. V.Venkata Laxmi in [2015] 59 Taxmann.com 216 held that where investment in construction of a new building is made within 3 years of sale of the property, the benefit of Sec.54F is given. Thus, as seen from the facts brought…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Dilip Ranjrekar, Bangalore

ITA 858/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 10(12)Section 143(3)Section 54

…riginal amount. In support of the proposition, the ld AR placed reliance, inter alia, on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) CIT v J.R. Subramanya Bhat – 28 Taxman 578 (Mys); (ii) CIT v Pradeep Kumar (153 Taxman 138) (Madras); (iii) CIT v H.K. Kapoor (234 ITR 753)(All). ITA No.858/B/16 & CO 28/B/17 7.5.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is apparent from the facts of the case as mentioned (along with copies of corroborative documentary evidence) and discussed above from para 7.1 to 4.4.3 of this order (Supra) that the non completion of t…

Aradhya Steel Wires Pvt Ltd., Davangere vs. DCIT, Davangere

ITA 1200/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. Shri Dilip Ranjrekar, No.6B, Nitesh Mayfair, 31, Kasturba Road Cross, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan No. – Aanpr4015M.

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 10(12)Section 143(3)Section 54

…riginal amount. In support of the proposition, the ld AR placed reliance, inter alia, on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) CIT v J.R. Subramanya Bhat – 28 Taxman 578 (Mys); (ii) CIT v Pradeep Kumar (153 Taxman 138) (Madras); (iii) CIT v H.K. Kapoor (234 ITR 753)(All). ITA No.858/B/16 & CO 28/B/17 7.5.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is apparent from the facts of the case as mentioned (along with copies of corroborative documentary evidence) and discussed above from para 7.1 to 4.4.3 of this order (Supra) that the non completion of t…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Haripriay Jagdish, Chennai

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

ITA 1532/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Murali Mohan, ACIT, D.RFor Respondent: Mr.P.S.Prabhakar,C.A
Section 54Section 54F

…014] 41 Taxmann.com 50(Delhi). Further, High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs.J.R.Subramanya Bhat in [1986] 28 Taxman 578 (Kar.) has taken a similar view, which was in turn followed by Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. H.K.Kapoor in [1998] 234 ITR 753 (Allahabad). Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Telangana in the case of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. V.Venkata Laxmi in [2015] 59 Taxmann.com 216 held that where investment in construction of a new building is made within 3 years of sale of the property, the benefit of Sec.54 is to be given. 5.2 In the present case, t…

Shri Jagdish Rai Karnani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 35(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal was answered in favour of assessee

ITA 594/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.594/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Jagdish Rai Karnani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-35(2) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Afapk 1013 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri B.C.Jain, Fca For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri B.C.Jain, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 54

…the new property prior to the date of sale of old property would be eligible for deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs H.K.Kapoor (Decd) reported in (1998) 234 ITR 753 (All) wherein it was held as under:- “7. The question for consideration is whether exemption on capital gains could be refused to the assessee simply on the ground that the construction of the Surya Nagar, Agra house, had begun before the sale of the" Golf Link house. Similar question came up for consideration before the Karnataka High Court in…

R.Upendran (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 1188/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, C/‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी. चं" पूजार" लेखा सद"य , के सम" । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1188/Mds./2015 (Assessment Year : 2010-11)) M/s.R.Upendran (HUF), The Income Tax officer, Vs. No.54 & 55, Kutchery Road, Business Ward II(1), Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Chennai-34. PAN AAMHR 1708 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.J.Santhanagopalan, C.A अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of hearing : 20.06.2017 : 03.07.2017 घोष…

Shri Rajesh Dayaramani, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Cir-8, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 449/NAG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no. 449/Nag./2013 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Shri Rajesh Dayaramani Hitesh Place, Ring Road …………… Appellant Jaripatka, Nagpur 440 014 PAN – ABOPD3501A v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ..…….………. Respondent Circle–8, Nagpur Assessee by : Shri K.P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri A.R. Ninawe Date of Hearing – 21.06.2017 Date of Order – 29.06.2017 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, J.M. The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 13th…

N.S. Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the impugned appeals are treated as allowed for

ITA 1431/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Krishnaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 54Section 68

…ITA.1431 & 1432/Bang/2015 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A', BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. I.T.A No.1431/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) 2. I.T.A No.1432/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) 1. Shri. N. S. Nagaraj, PAN : ABRPM9099G Prop : M/s. Bhaskar Departmental, No.10/1, Serpantine Road, K. P. West, Bengaluru – 560 020 2. Smt. N. S. Mallika Nagaraj, ABRPN8664P No.8, 9th A Cross, Kumara Park Nest, Bengaluru 560 026 .. Appellants v. Income Tax Officer , Ward – 6(2), Bengaluru .. Respondent Asse…

ITO 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajiv Bholanath Gupta, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-7(2)(1), Shri Rajiv Bholanath Gupta, Room No.621A, 6Th Floor, 1103, Raheja Acropolis, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Atlantic Deonar Chembur, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400088 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabpg9848F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Jignes Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr

Section 54

…s K. Raheja Universal Pvt. 4 Rajiv Bholanath Gupta Ltd.) at the cost of Rs.1,02,13,685/-. The factual matrix was duly examined by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and he has justifiably place reliance upon the decision in CIT vs H.K. Kapoor (1998) 234 ITR 753(All.), CIT vs J.R. Subramanya Bhatt (1987) 165 ITR 571 (Kar.). The assessee entered into an agreement dated 09/08/2006 with M/s K. Raheja Universal Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of a flat (No.1103). The builder demolished the old structure on the land and commenced construction. As per the agreement, the assessee agreed to purchase the flat vide letter…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Yashodhar Kumar Jain, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee as well as

ITA 1697/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 40Section 54

…t the exemption under section 54 is not available where the new construction is made before the transfer of the existing house, The appellant on the other hand, has relied on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. H.K. Kapoor [1998] 150 CTR 128, wherein it was held that exemption on capita' gains could not be refused simply on the house. Reliance was also placed on the Karnataka High Court order in the case of CIT vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 561, wherein the court held that to get the benefit of section 54,(The assessee must have constructed the new house witter the prescr…

Yashodhar Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee as well as

ITA 1449/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 40Section 54

…t the exemption under section 54 is not available where the new construction is made before the transfer of the existing house, The appellant on the other hand, has relied on the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. H.K. Kapoor [1998] 150 CTR 128, wherein it was held that exemption on capita' gains could not be refused simply on the house. Reliance was also placed on the Karnataka High Court order in the case of CIT vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 561, wherein the court held that to get the benefit of section 54,(The assessee must have constructed the new house witter the prescr…

Commissioner of Income Tax - Xv vs. Bharti Mishra

ITA - 567 / 2013HC Delhi18 Dec 2013
Section 54Section 54F

…ITA No. 567/2013 Page 1 of 13 $~1. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 567/2013 Date of decision: 18th December, 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - XV ..... Appellant Through Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus BHARTI MISHRA ..... Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): Learned counsel for the appel…