CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma

331 ITR 211High Court2011#1050 most cited

What is CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma authority for?

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

104

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. K.G. Rukminiamma · Section 54 · Section 54F · capital gains exemption · "a residential house" · multiple residential units · Section 13 General Clauses Act · singular plural interpretation · long term capital gain · residential house exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 54FSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 143(1)Section 148A(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 13(2)indexed cost of acquisitionsection 54section 54fdate of transfersection 45fair market valuelong term capital gainscrutiny assessmentsection 13transfer

Judgments citing CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Gopal V Gorwani, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 421/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Harshad Vengurlekar
Section 147Section 54

…ted, all the four floors are to be considered as one unit used by the assessee and his family members since it has a common kitchen. For this proposition, he relied upon the following case laws:– Late Gopal V. Gorwani 13 i) CIT v. Smt. KG Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Kar.); and ii) CIT v/s Geeta Duggal [2013] 357 ITR 153 (Del.). 15. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. We have also examined the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee. As could be seen, the Assessing Officer has disallowed assessee’s claim under section 54 towar…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Mr. Christina Ann Kuriacose, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1541/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V.K. Sudhakar Shetty, CA
Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…ising therefrom, but claimed exemption u/s.54 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, in support of such claim, assessee had placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. K. G. Rukminiamma [(2011) 331 ITR 211]. However, contention of the assessee was not accepted by AO. According to him, assessee could at best claim exemption u/s.54 of the Act with respect to only one residential property. Page 3 of 10 6.05% share received by the assessee translated to 4 ½ flats. As per the AO, in a later judgment in the case of CIT v. Khoobchand M. Makhija [(2014…

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. Mr. Sundara Derebail Poojary, Mangalore

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V .Srinivasan, CA
Section 48Section 54Section 54(1)

…le only to “a residential house’, whereas the Assessee got two flats and therefore the exemption has to be restricted to only one flat. 5. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma, 331 ITR 211 (Karn), wherein the Hon’ble High Court took the view that the four flats representing the share of the owner of the property in a JDA should be considered as ‘a residential house’ for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. The AO, however, was of the view that the aforesaid decision has not been accepted by the department and he th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Late Khoobchand M Makhija

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/496/2007HC Karnataka18 Dec 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 260Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

…orting the masculine gender shall be taken to include females; and (2) words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa. 14. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- Tax and Another –vs- Smt.K.G.Rukminiamma reported in (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karn), had an occasion to consider Section 54 of the Act and had held as under: “For a proper appreciation of the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to have a careful look at Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, which reads as under: "54. Profit on sale of property used for residence - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2)…