CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao

56 Taxmann.com 163High Court2015#1855 most cited

What is CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao authority for?

The exemption under Section 54F (or Section 54) for long-term capital gains cannot be denied if the assessee invests the entire sale consideration in constructing a residential house within the prescribed three-year period, even if the amount was not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme before the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1). The purpose of the Capital Gains Account Scheme is to preserve the exemption when actual investment is pending, not to deny it if actual utilization occurs within the statutory timeframe.

62

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao · Section 54F exemption · Section 54 exemption · Capital Gains Account Scheme · due date of return filing · Section 139(1) · actual investment in residential house · long term capital gains exemption · Section 54F(4) · construction of house property · denial of exemption · capital gains scheme deposit

Also reported as

277 CTR 522230 Taxmann 334

Sections most often in play

Section 54FSection 143(3)Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F(1)Section 54F(4)Section 139(4)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 54f(1)section 54(2)section 54(1)long-term capital assetsection 54fsection 54date of transfersection 139(4)indexed cost of acquisitionsection 45long term capital gainslong term capital gain

Judgments citing CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao

Shri Bhupesh Navinchandra Raval, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2287/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2287/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

…Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.Ramachandra Rao and other orders of the ITAT Bombay, Calcutta, etc. He also placed on record copy of the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.Ramachandra Rao reported at (2015) 277 CTR 522 (Kar.). 9. On the strength of these two decisions, he contended that conditions provided in sub-section(2) of section 54 are obligatory and not mandatory. The conditions provided in this sub-section were for the objective to keep a track on the intention of the assessee whether he is going to purchase a new house from the sale proceeds or not. B…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Dr. Kushagra Kataria, vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), 5th floor, HSSIDC Building, C/o S. Talwar & Co., 409, Sector-31, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V Gurgaon Gurgaon (PAN: AKWPK6521-E) [Appellant] [RESPONDENT] Assessee by : Shri Arvind Kumar, Adv. & Ms. Sudha Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 13.1.2016 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Gurg…

Shri Vijay Mahipal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 502/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Mahipal -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aekpm 9834 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…the Act, should the Assessee be denied the benefit of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. On this issue the ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT, Bangalore vs K.Ramachandra Rao (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 163 (Karn). In the aforesaid decision the assessee had not deposited the unutilised net consideration in a specific bank account as is required u/s 54F of the Act. The assessee had however invested the net consideration in construction of a residential house within the period contemplated u/s 54F (1) of the Act. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Cour…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ratilal Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 563/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The I.T.O-2(1)(1), Shri Ratilal Patel, 543, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Poonam Apartment, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 139, Bora Bazar Street, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Adfpa2032C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr. DR)
Section 139Section 143Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The I.T.O-2(1)(1), Shri Ratilal Patel, 543, Aayakar Bhavan, 4th Floor, Poonam Apartment, 5th Floor, M.K. Marg, 139, Bora Bazar Street, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400001 PAN: ADFPA2032C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr. DR) Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR) Date of Hearing: 24/09/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 09/10/2018 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 18.01.2016 passe…

The ITO, Cochin vs. Late Sri.K.Sasidharan Rep by Smt. K.P.Sailaja, Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 56/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No.56/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2006-07 The I.T.O., Non-Corporate, Vs. Late Shri K. Sasidharan, Ward-2(3), Kochi Rep. by Smt. K.P. Sailaja, Shakunthala Bhavan, Karumakkad, Thrikkakara, Kochi-21. [PAN: AGOPS 7570H] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) C.O. No. 23/Coch/2017 (Arsg. out of I.T.A. No. 56/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Late Shri K. Sasidharan, Vs. The I.T.O., Non-Corporate, Ward- Rep. by Smt. K.P. Sailaja, 2(3), Kochi Shakunthala Bhavan, Karumakkad, Th…

Shri Suresh Chandra, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 357/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 357/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Suresh Chandra, Vs Income Tax Officer, Iii-C/8, Nehru Nagar, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abwpc4464B Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.11.2014 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 54Section 54F

…ditions imposed in Sub-Section (1) of Section 54/54F of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau) " CIT Vs Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H) " CIT Vs K. Ramachandra Rao (2015) 277 CTR 522 (Kar.) 7 Suresh Chandra " ITO Vs Smt. Sapna Dimri in ITA No. 4958/Del/2011 order dated 20.01.2012 " ACIT Vs Smt. Umayal Annamali in ITA No. 415/Mds./2015 order dated 22.04.2016 " Sh. Ajeet Kumar Jaiswal Vs ITO in ITA No. 1707/Hyd./2016 order dated 31.08.2017 " Sunayana Devi Vs ITO, Ward-2(4), Siliguri (2017) 86 Taxmann.com 72 (Kol. Trib.) " Mrs.…

The ACIT, Circle-6, Surat vs. Shri Ajay Dhansukhbhai Patel, Surat

In the result,appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 290/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.290/Ahd/2016/Srt "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Shri Ajaykumar Dhansukhbhai Circle-2(3), Patel, Surat. Ishwar Krupa, B/H Anand Park, Althan, Althan Bharthana, Tal-Choriyasi, Dist. Surat – 395 007. [Pan:Amapp 3980A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Mehul R. Shah, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shridileep Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06-07-2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-07-2018

For Appellant: Shri Mehul R. Shah, C.A ""For Respondent: ShriDileep Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54BSection 68

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरणसूरत"ायपीठ,सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,SURAT BENCH,SURAT "ीसी एमगग", "ाियक सद" एवं"ीओपीमीना, लेखा सद" केसम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.290/Ahd/2016/SRT "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Shri Ajaykumar Dhansukhbhai Circle-2(3), Patel, Surat. Ishwar Krupa, B/h Anand Park, Althan, Althan Bharthana, Tal-Choriyasi, Dist. Surat – 395 007. [PAN:AMAPP 3980A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri Mehul R. Shah, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे /Revenue by : ShriDilee…

ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5644/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito-(It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Mrs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, C/O 17Th Floor, Room No. 1727, C C Dayal & Co. Cas. Jeevan Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Udyog, 278, D.D. Road, Fort, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Acapg8593Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Cit (Dr) Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, Ar Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018. Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit(A)’]And Arises Out Of The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Grounds Of Appeals Read As Under: 1. Whether On Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Deduction Under Section 54 For Investment Of Capital Gain In Purchase Of New Residential House In Australia & Thus Allowing The Shifting

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 ITO-(IT)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Mrs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, C/o 17th floor, Room No. 1727, C C Dayal & Co. CAS. Jeevan Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Udyog, 278, D.d. Road, Fort, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400001 PAN No. ACAPG8593Q Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT (DR) Assessee by : Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, AR Date of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date of pronouncement: 27/06/2018. ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the…

Smt Y S Mythily, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

ITA 1324/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri H.Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 148Section 263Section 54F

…rement of section 54F stands fulfilled if the amount is invested in new house before due date of filing return of income and in support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.Ramachandra Rao (277 CTR 522)(Kar). Learned AR of the assessee further contended that issue of exemption u/s 54F was examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and it cannot be said that there was no enquiry by the AO into this aspect. Therefore, exercise of power of revision by the ld.CIT u/s 263 was not justified. 6. On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) plac…

Smt Y S Mythily, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

ITA 1323/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri H.Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 148Section 263Section 54F

…rement of section 54F stands fulfilled if the amount is invested in new house before due date of filing return of income and in support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.Ramachandra Rao (277 CTR 522)(Kar). Learned AR of the assessee further contended that issue of exemption u/s 54F was examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and it cannot be said that there was no enquiry by the AO into this aspect. Therefore, exercise of power of revision by the ld.CIT u/s 263 was not justified. 6. On the other hand, ld.CIT(DR) plac…

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 220/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 216 to 220/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Shri N. Ragothaman, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Ravi Jewellery, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No 1, Prakasam Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFPR 6790K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 112/Chny/2017 "नधा"र…

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 219/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 216 to 220/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Shri N. Ragothaman, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Ravi Jewellery, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No 1, Prakasam Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFPR 6790K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 112/Chny/2017 "नधा"र…

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 218/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 216 to 220/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Shri N. Ragothaman, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Ravi Jewellery, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No 1, Prakasam Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFPR 6790K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 112/Chny/2017 "नधा"र…

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 217/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 216 to 220/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Shri N. Ragothaman, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Ravi Jewellery, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No 1, Prakasam Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFPR 6790K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 112/Chny/2017 "नधा"र…

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 216/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 216 to 220/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Shri N. Ragothaman, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Ravi Jewellery, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No 1, Prakasam Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFPR 6790K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 112/Chny/2017 "नधा"र…

ITO, Chennai vs. N.Ragothaman, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 112/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 216 to 220/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Shri N. Ragothaman, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Ravi Jewellery, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No 1, Prakasam Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFPR 6790K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 112/Chny/2017 "नधा"र…

Sreedharan Vijayakumar, Chennai vs. ITO Internatiional Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose as indicated herein above

ITA 1799/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 28.12.2017
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54Section 54F

…ordingly delete the addition made by him which was further sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).” 7.1 Further this issue is also decided by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramachandra Rao reported in (2015) 277 CTR 522. The gist of the decision is extracted herein below for reference:- "as is clear from sub-section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in section 54F (1), if the assessee wants the benefit of section 54 F, th…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai vs. Justice T.S.Arunachalam, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2455/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Shri P.H. Arvind Pandian, Sr
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

…laiming deduction u/s 54F/54 is to invest the capital gains in the construction of the residential house within three years from the date of transfer of the original asset. 15. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs. K.Ramachandra Rao(2015) 277 CTR 522, has held, "as is clear from sub-section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in section 54F (1), if the assessee wants the benefit of section 54 F, then he should deposit the said capital gain in an account w…

M.K.Vithya, Thiruvannamalai vs. ITO Ward 1, Thiruvannamalai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 5

ITA 2739/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2739/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015

For Appellant: Ms. K. Hemalatha, ACAFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…gains. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the construction of the residential house was completed well before 15.03.2017 and therefore by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramachandra Rao, 277 CTR 522 the claim was allowable. According to her, the question of making investment in an account under Capital Gains Accounts Scheme was not relevant where the assessee had constructed a residential house within a period stipulated u/s.54F (1)of the Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the d…

Ravi Kant HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4174/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

Section 139(1)Section 260ASection 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant HUF, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AABHR0354M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Sanjay Kapadia Shri Purushottam Kumar-DR राज"…