How many judgments cite CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat?

39 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat (165 ITR 571), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat 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. J.R. Subramanya Bhat

165 ITR 571High Court1987#3000 most cited

What is CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat authority for?

Exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act for capital gains invested in a new residential house is not denied even if the construction of the new house commenced before the sale of the original asset.

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 J.R. Subramanya Bhat · section 54 · section 54F · capital gains · new residential house · commencement of construction · date of transfer · long-term capital asset · sale of property

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 date of transfer section 54f section 54 section 45 long term capital gains long term capital gain commissioner (appeals)section 139(1)transfer previous year

Judgments citing CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat

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

…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 the case of CIT vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhat (1987) 64 CTR (Kar) 286:(1987) 165 ITR 571 (Kar):TC 22R 219. In the case before the Karnataka High Court, the date of the sale of the old building was 9th Feb., 1977. The completion of the construction of the new building was in March, 1977, although the commencement of construction started in 1976. On these facts, the Karnataka High Court held that it was immaterial that the construction…

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

…ed 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 of section 54F were/are applicable to all other asset…

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

…the ground that the construction of the new residential house had begun before the sale of the old residential property. The Hon'ble High Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 571 (Kar), and observed, that it was immaterial that the construction of the new building was started before the sale of the old building. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court concurred with the view taken by the Tribunal, and observed, that the capital gains arising from the sale of the old property to the extent it was invested in the construction o…

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

…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 Mishra (Delhi High Court) 265 CTR 374 In CIT VS Sardarmal Kothar…

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

…et” and placed reliance on the following decisions: ➤ 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 th…

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)

…9 (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 High Court in MS. Moturi Lakshmi vs ITO vide [2020] 428 ITR 462 (Mad) pronounced on 17.08.2020 10. The Judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Cou…

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 54F

…. Hilla J.B. Wadia [1995] 216 ITR 376. wherein the Honorable High Court has held that it is a case of "Construction". Reliance was placed on the judgment of Honorable Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhatt [1986] 28 Taxman 578/[1987] 165 ITR 571. wherein it has been held at it is immaterial whether the construction of the new house was started before the date of transfer, it should be completed after the date of transfer of the original house. In the present case, he had booked a semi finished flat with the builder, namely DLF Universal Limited in the residential group housing complex na…

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

…er book comprising copies of document and details submitted before the lower authorities. He also referred the following judicial pronouncements: I. Mustansir I 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 dat…

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

JCIT (OSD),CIRCLE-17(1), MUMBAI vs. NAFISA ASGAR MUN, MUMBAI

ITA 443/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. A.R

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

…cement of construction can precede the date of sale. of old asset. In the instant case, the assessee had booked the flat much prior to the dale of old flat. It is noticed that the Karnataka High Court has held in the case of CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 571/[1986] 28 Taxman 578 that commencement of construction is not relevant for the purpose of section 54 and it is only the completion of construction. The above said ratio was followed in the case of Asst. CIT v. Subhash Sevaram Bhavnani (2012) 23 taxmann.com 94 (Ahd. - Trib.). Both these cases support the contentions of the assessee. Accordingly, f…

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1955/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA

Section 54F

…akash vs. ITO reported in [2008] 173 Taxman 311 (Bombay) Page 5 of 14 ii) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. K.Ramachandra Rao reported in (2015) 277 CTR 522 iii) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Subramanya Bhat reported in (1987) 165 ITR 571 iv) Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of C. Aryama Sundaram vs. CIT reported in [2018] 407 ITR 1. 4. On the contrary, the Ld.Sr.DR submitted that assessee has claimed u/s. 54F toward purchase of land 4 years prior to sale of original asset along with cost of construction of residential house. He also submitted that the disallowance is justified a…

KAMLESH JAIN & SONS HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…s. Akshay Sobti (2020) 423 ITR 321 (Del) - CIT vs. Bharti Mishra (2014) 265 CTR 374 - DCIT vs. Dr. Chalasani Mallikarjuna Rao (2016) 161 ITD 721 (Vskp.) - ACIT vs. Subhash Sevaram Bhavnani (2012) 23 taxmann.com 94 (Ahd.) - CIT vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhatt (1987) 165 ITR 571 - Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT (2021) 62 CCH 70 (Kol. Trib.) - Padam Kumar Jain vs. CIT (2020) 59 CCH 209 (Ranchi) - Magic Landcon LLP & Anr. Vs. Pr. CIT (2020) 204 TTJ 785 (Del) - Karthik Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT (2019) 55 CCH - ITO vs. K.C. Gopalan (2000) 162 CTR 566 (Ker.) - Yatin Prakash Telang vs. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 70…

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

ITA 629/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

For Respondent: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.A

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

…n claimed under section 54F in respect of the investment made in residential property prior to the date of sale of original asset is against the principles laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the decision of CIT vs. J. R. Subramanya Bhat reported in 165 ITR 571 on the facts of the case. d) The authorities below ought to have provided the exemption under section 54F of the Act amounting to Page 3 of 17 Rs.44,10,070/- on the facts of the case e) The authorities below failed to appreciate. that exemption claimed Wider section 54F of the Act cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay in construction o…

SHUMA KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee failed on all five grounds raised before us

ITA 4128/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishuma Kalra, Vs. Pr. Cit-12, A-28, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipk8142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaoudhary, CIT DR

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

…at construction of house property is within the time limit, and therefore, the revenue‟s argument is devoid of any merit. He submitted that even the construction may be prior to sale of property and it is eligible for deduction. He relied upon 234 ITR 743 and 165 ITR 571 for the above proposition. In view of this, he submitted that the order passed by the ld PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is not sustainable. 15. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee as per return of income filed claimed of deduction u/s 54 of the Act of the whole of the capital g…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’ बी ’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर. एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं, "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य समक् BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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/Appell…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI. SANDEEP BHUJANGA SHETTY, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1068/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT – DRFor Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, C A

Section 54Section 54F

…ibunal in case of DCIT vs. Shobha Developers in ITA No. 1410/Bang/2013. Ld. AR placed Page 7 of 13 ITA 1068/BANG/2019 & ITA 1070/Bang/2019 A. Y : 2015 – 16 reliance on decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Jay Subramanya Bhat reported in 165 ITR 571 and CIT vs Ramachandra Rao reported in 277 CTR 522 in support of his contentions. It is submitted that, Hon’ble Court in these decisions answered question in favour of assessee that; Where assessee invests entire sale consideration and construction of residential house within 3 years from the date of transfer can he be denied exemption under sect…

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

…n that is relevant, which is admittedly within 3 years in the case of the Assessee. 3.10. In this regard, the Assessee places reliance on an early decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat, reported as [1987] 165 ITR 571, involving an identical issue. The facts of the case were that the assessee therein had sold the original asset on 09.02.1977, whereas construction of the new asset was commenced sometime around March 1976 and completed in March 1977. The AO disallowed the claim u/s 54, inter alia, on the ground that the construction activity was commenced befor…

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

…ved as advance only, so as to construct the house thereon and there is no embargo to the purchase of plot or start construction prior to the sale of house property, as held by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 571 (Karnataka) which was followed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. H.K. Kapoor (Decd.) [1998] 234 ITR 753 (All). 9. The real issue in the present case is that new residential house has not been constructed within a period of three years from the date of the transfer of the residential property which resulted in the long-te…

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

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2