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#2996 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 366,339 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

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

…ly 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 provisions of Section 54F were/are applicable to all other ass…

Dev Kumar Roy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2350/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

…T(A) was of the view even if sec. 54F is allowed it cannot be in respect of the investments made prior to the transfer of the capital asset. On this issue there is a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat, 165 ITR 571 (Kar). The Hon’ble High Court in the aforesaid judgment after referring to the conditions for grant of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act, allowed the claim of assessee for deduction by observing as follows:- “4. The Tribunal has held that the ground or land appurtenant to the building was in the occupation of the assessee. It has further held that…

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

…hese two assumptions were challenged by the assessee now. 11. In CIT vs H.K. Kapoor (supra), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held in unequivocal terms that in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571, the capital gains arising from the sale of the old house to the extent it got invested in the construction of the new house would be exempt u/s 54 of the Act and Section 54 does not lay down that the construction of the new house must taken after the sale of the old residential house or that the sale proceeds of the old residential house must be…

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

…he commencement of construction started in 1976 on these facts the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held as under: "That it was immaterial that the construction of the new building was started before the sale of old building". (CIT v. J. R. Subramanya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571 (Kar.). That despite conceding the fact that the registry of the Flat had been done on 23-06-2017 i.e. within one year before, the Ld. A.O. he has disallowed the claim on the mere ground that the payment had been made 4 years ago, i.e. in F.Y. 2004-05. That at this stage I would like to assert that mode of payment of Rs. 1775000 depicted in the s…

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)

…not match with facts of this case, as in that case, purchase of new house property was made within time frame stipulated u/s 54(1) of the Act and only the matter was related to source of fund invested under this section. In CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571 (Karn), it was held that date of commencement of construction of new building is immaterial for being eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. But, in this case also, the Hon'ble High court made the house building eligible for exemption under this, construction of which has been started before the date of transfer of original asset and not the a…

Smt.Manju Mahendra Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Section 45Section 54

…date of old asset, but the same should be completed within three years from the date of sale. In support of this proposition, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. J.R.Subramanya Bhat (1987)(165 ITR 571), which was followed in the case of Asst. CIT Vs. Subhash Sevaram Bhavnani (2012)(23 taxmann.com 94)(Ahd. Trib.). The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has completed the construction of new flat within three years from the date of transfer of old asset and accordingly he submitted that the assessee has complied with the conditions of sec.54. He…

ITO 26(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Gope G. Shahani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6895/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish T. PunjabiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR

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

…er the transfer of the larger plot. We do not see how this decision is of any assistance to the Revenue because it turned entirely on the facts of that case. Similarly, the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 571 also does not assist the Revenue. In the case before the Karnataka High Court, the assessee sold a building on the ground floor of which the assessee was residing, in February, 1977. In March, 1976, the assessee had commenced construction of the new house which was completed in March, 1977. The assessee claimed exemption from tax on capital gains…

Vasala Balakrishnan Ravikrishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 6, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1967/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1967/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Pushya SeetharamanFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 54

…financial year 2012-13. The Ld. Sr. counsel has placed a copy of property tax details said to be downloaded from the website maintained by Corporation of Chennai. Placing reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571, the Ld. Sr. counsel submitted that it is immaterial about the date of commencement of construction of the new building. What is material is completion of construction within two years from the date of sale of the old asset. According to the Ld. Sr. counsel, since the old asset was sold and new asset was constructed within two years from the d…

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

…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 the case of CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 571. In the case before the Karnataka High Court, the date of the sale of the old building was February 9, 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 of the new bui…

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…

ITO, Chennai vs. Shri Gangesan Saseendran, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2753/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2753/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr.N.Rajagopalan, CA

Section 54F

…urt in the case of CIT B. Sri SardarmalKothari reported in (2008) TMI 30/87. iii. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs H.K. Kapoor [1998] 234 ITR 75. iv. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs T.R. Subramanya Bhatt reported in [1987] 165 ITR 571. v. Ld. Chennai Tribunal in the case of Seetha Subramanian vs ACIT reported in 59 ITR 94. vi. Ld. Chennai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs R. Vasu in ITA No.1656/Mds/2008 dated 09.07.2010. 6.2 The head note of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of Bharti Mishra (supra) is as under: “Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Capit…

Asha Marthanda Pillai, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3435/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT

Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54F

…of the land and other for construction of a residential flat would not, PERSE convert the :- 5 -: acquisition done by the assessee as one which was not a purchase. Relying on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhat 165 ITR 571 and that of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Shri. R. Vasu (ITA No.1656/Mds/2008, dated 9.7.2010), ld. Authorised Representative submitted that date of commencement of construction of new building was irrelevant and assessee was entitled for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 5. supporte…

ITO 21(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 2247/MUM/2014[2010-1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

…exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court also considered CBDT Circular No.471 dated 15/10/1986. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Court duly considered the decision in CI T vs Mrs. Sehjada Begum 173 ITR 397 (AP), CIT vs Subramaniya Bhatt 165 ITR 571 (Karn.), Shanta Ben P. Gandhi vs CIT129 ITR 218 (Guj.). In the light of the foregoing discussion, facts on record, and the judicial pronouncements, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), therefore, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 3. The next ground pertains to deleting the disallowance of…

Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 1993/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

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

…made u/s.54 of the Act. 02. Before the Ld CIT (A), the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v. H. K. Kapoor (Decd.) [234 ITR 753], wherein the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. J. R. Subramanya Bhat [165 ITR 571], was followed. The Ld CIT (A), found, inter alia, that although the initial claim was made on the plea that the construction was completed in A Y. 2006-07, later on, the assessee claimed that Rs.2,96,680/- was spent in A. Y. 2007-08. Evidently, it showed that the construction was completed after the date of sale. However, the appellant has…

Subramanyam Baskaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

ITA 264/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S. Krishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT

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

…and produced a copy of completion certificate, sale deed copy, proof of re-investment in new property, ITA No. 264/Mds/2016. :- 6 -: purchase documents and relied on judicial decisions of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Subramanya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571 and ITAT decision of ACIT vs. Subhash Sevaram Bhavnani (2012) 23 taxmann. 94(Ahd) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Ralhan (2014) 46 Taxmann.com 416 and the action of the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee is entitled for exemption only in respect of amount invested before one year of sale of proper…

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

….) 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 dated 12/02/2008 and was informed that the builder has…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Prashanth Prakash, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 864/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…n, this requirement is not mentioned in section 54F nor is anything prescribed in the provisions about the date of commencement of constructions. This has also been endorsed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs J. R Subramanya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571. The other judicial decisions cited in the context of requirement of registration of transfer deeds support the appellant’s grounds. On consideration of the facts and the applicable judicial precedents, therefore, it is reasonably concluded that the appellant’s contentions arc correct. The AO is directed to allow the deduction u/s 54F. These grou…

Commissioner of Income Tax - Xv vs. Bharti Mishra

ITA - 567 / 2013HC Delhi18 Dec 2013

Section 54Section 54F

…Page 3 of 13 Comissioner of Income Tax versus H.K. Kapoor (Decd.), (1998) 234 ITR 753 (All.) and Commissioner of Income Tax versus J.R. Subramanya Bhat, (1987) 165 ITR 571 (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 provisions of Section 54F were/are applicable to all other assets, not bein…