CIT v. Kamal Wahal

351 ITR 4High Court2013#1596 most cited

What is CIT v. Kamal Wahal authority for?

An assessee is eligible for capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F even when the new residential house is purchased in the name of their spouse, provided the investment comes from the assessee's own funds. This allows for a purposive construction of these provisions.

71

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kamal Wahal · Kamal Wahal · Section 54 exemption · Section 54F exemption · capital gains exemption · new house in spouse name · purchase in wife name · investment from assessee funds · purposive construction · long term capital gain

Also reported as

30 Taxmann.com 34214 Taxmann 287

Sections most often in play

Section 54FSection 54Section 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 45Section 139(1)Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54bsection 54fsection 54indexed cost of acquisitiontransfer of capital assetdate of transfersection 45long term capital gainsection 50csection 50long term capital gains

Judgments citing CIT v. Kamal Wahal

ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), (Itn. Tax.), New Delhi vs. Rajiv Ghai, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8490/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Shray, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 54

…e gone through the entire record before us and find that the ld. CIT(A) had diligently, meticulously & conscientiously, after considering the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court judgments in the case of ACIT Vs. Suresh Verma (135 ITD 102) & CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal (351 ITR 4) came to a valid conclusion that the investments have been made by the assessee from his bank account of Rs.17,65,000/- on 14.08.2014 and Rs.3,31,82,000/- dated 21.08.2014 for payment to Sh. V. Ravindran, seller of the property and the parents have gone to registration owing to the absence of the assessee in India. Further, it is also a fact that s…

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Rajasekaran Vasanthamalli, Town Hall, Coimbatore

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 653/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ance. Accordingly, invoking of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act by the learned CIT(A) is void-ab-initio. Principle of purposive construction to be followed 3.The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judicial principle as laid down by CIT Vs Kamal Wahal (2013) 351 ITR 4 (Delhi) that purposive construction is to be preferred as against a literal construction. In our current facts, though the acquirer is the Appellant, the repayment of the loan is made by the firm M/S Chandran Steels. Accordingly, by preferring the principle of purposive construction as against literal construction, it is clearly evident that the Pr…

Chandrasekaran Valarmathi, Town House, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 652/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ance. Accordingly, invoking of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act by the learned CIT(A) is void-ab-initio. Principle of purposive construction to be followed 3.The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the judicial principle as laid down by CIT Vs Kamal Wahal (2013) 351 ITR 4 (Delhi) that purposive construction is to be preferred as against a literal construction. In our current facts, though the acquirer is the Appellant, the repayment of the loan is made by the firm M/S Chandran Steels. Accordingly, by preferring the principle of purposive construction as against literal construction, it is clearly evident that the Pr…

Raghuvir Singh, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

ITA 1132/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘F’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1132/DEL/2022 [A.Y. 2017-18] Shri Raghuvir Singh Vs. The P.C.I.T. S/o Shri Harphool Singh Faridabad H. No. 53, Near Shiv Mandir Vill. Darbaripur Tehsil, Badshapur Gurugram, Haryana PAN: GUSPS 8800 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Department By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 07.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by t…

Ravinder Kumar, Meerut Cantt vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Meerut

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2265/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatravinder Kumar Vs. Ito C/O. M/S. Kartar Singh & Ward – 2(2) Co., 86, Bank Street, Meerut Meerut Uttar Prades – 250 001 Pan No. Amcpk 8771 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. P. Narang, Adv. Revenue By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.11.2023

Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ravinder Kumar Vs. ITO C/o. M/s. Kartar Singh & Ward – 2(2) Co., 86, Bank Street, Meerut Meerut Uttar Prades – 250 001 PAN No. AMCPK 8771 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri R. P. Narang, Adv. Revenue by Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 02.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 08.11.2023 PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Cent…

Ompal, Meerut vs. ITO Ward - 2(1), M

In the result ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 3986/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 54B

…een able to produce any evidence that the funds for purchase of the agricultural land was given by 6 assessee. 06. The Id AR submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal 30 Taxmann.com 34 (Delhi). Regarding the issue of investments of funds by the assessee he submitted the copy of the bank statement of the assessee with Punjab National Bank. He submitted that cheque no stated in the bank account of the assessee are same as mentioned in the purchase deed of the land, hence the sources of the funds for purchase of agricultural…

Balaraj Guttamidi, Manikonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 262/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Balaraj Guttamidi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(1), R/O. Rangareddy. Hyderabad. Pan : Btlpg4930J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar. Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balaraj Guttamidi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(1), R/o. Rangareddy. Hyderabad. PAN : BTLPG4930J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar. Revenue by: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date of hearing: 20.12.2022 Date of pronouncement: 21.12.2022 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Hyderabad dt.06.02.2020 invoking…

Meena Thiagarajan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3195/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri N.Arjun Raj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…. Hence, we do not see any question of law much less, substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the first question fails and the same is rejected. 6.1 Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal, [2013] 351 ITR 4 has also considered the identical issue and held that the assessee can purchase new house in the name of his wife and not in the name of any stranger who was not connected with him, exemption could not be denied u/s.54F of the Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed in para 7 to 10 as under:- 7. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the vie…

Kaushlendra Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-5(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 May 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri C.P. Chawla (ITP)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271FSection 54F

…cision of Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in ITA (II) No.139/JP/2016, dated 08/12/2017, in the case of Shri Vivek Jain vs DCIT Circle-2 Jaipur, A.Y. 2012-13. Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT- Vs (III) Shri Kamal Wahal (Delhi HC) (2013) 351 ITR 4. Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri (IV) Ravindra Kumar Arora (Delhi) (2012) 342 ITR 38 (Del). (V) Decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri Natarajan (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad). Decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case (VI) of CIT Vs Shri Gurman Singh (2014) 327 ITR 278. Decision…

Jayawant Gajanan Sutar, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1(5), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 556/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 54Section 54B

…transfer the property to him and the son becomes absolute owner of the property for all the purposes, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of exemption u/s.54B of the Act. 7. It is seen that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Shri Kamal Wahal (2013) 351 ITR 4 (Del) and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Gurnam Singh (2010) 327 ITR 278 (P&H) have decided similar issue in favour of the assessee by allowing exemption u/s 54B observing that the assessee having invested sale proceeds of his agricultural land in purchasing another agricultural land, though in a joint name with his son, was e…

Urmila Madhumar Ved, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1891/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1891/Pun/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 148Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…ear intention to transfer the property to him and the son becomes the full owner of property for all the purposes, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of exemption u/s 54B. 5. It is seen that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Shri Kamal Wahal (2013) 351 ITR 4 (Del) and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Gurnam Singh (2010) 327 ITR 278 (P&H) have decided similar issue in favour of the assessee by allowing exemption u/s 54B observing that the assessee having invested sale proceeds of his agricultural land in purchasing another agricultural land, though in a joint name with his son, was e…

Vandana Maruti Pathare, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2223/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vandana Maruti Pathare Vs. Ito, Ward S.No.69, Sania Constructions, 2(3), Pune Kharadi, Pune 411014 Pan : Akapp6727H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Deepak Sasar Revenue By Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16-03-2022

Section 54B

…clear intention to transfer the property to him and the son becomes the full owner of property for all the purposes, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of exemption u/s 54B. 5. It is seen that the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Shri Kamal Wahal (2013) 351 ITR 4 (Del) and the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Gurnam Singh (2010) 327 ITR 278 (P&H) have decided similar issue in favour of the assessee by allowing exemption u/s 54B observing that the assessee having invested sale proceeds of his agricultural land in purchasing another agricultural land, though in a joint name with his son, was eli…

DCIT-8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ashok Santu Bhavani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed

ITA 6510/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6Th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New Pushpamilan, Mk Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018

For Appellant: Mr.Mehul Jain.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Ajit Jain.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New pushpamilan, MK Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AEUPB2016F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.Mehul Jain.Sr.DR Respondent by : Mr.Ajit Jain.AR Date of Hearing 18.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of…

Shri. Sajal Radhikamohan Kar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-27 (3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6476/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sajal Radhikamohan Kar Acit,Circle -27(3) 503, Swastik Solitaire, Chadve Vs. Tower 6, Vashi Railway Chs, Sion Trombay Road, Station Complex, Chember, Mumbai – 400071 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan No. Aadpk3367P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54

…ITA No.6476/Mum/2019 AY. 2015-16 1 Shri Sajal Radhikamohan kar Vs. ACIT, Circle-27(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Shri Sajal Radhikamohan Kar ACIT,Circle -27(3) 503, Swastik Solitaire, Chadve Vs. Tower 6, Vashi Railway CHS, Sion Trombay Road, Station Complex, Chember, Mumbai – 400071 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 PAN No. AADPK3367P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.R Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date of Hearing : 03/08/2021 Date of pronouncement : 01/09/2021…

Smt Y Manjula Reddy vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/177/2017HC Karnataka23 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 54F

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.177 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SMT. Y. MANJULA REDDY PRESENTLY R/AT. NO.1010 3RD FLOOR, 26TH MAIN 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, ADV.,) AND: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(2), BMTC BUILDING 6TH BLOCK, 80 FT. ROAD KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV., FOR SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,)…

Shobha Sharma, Sirsa vs. ITO-Ward-3, Sirsa

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 54F

…ect of taxation within the corners of Income Tax Act. As regards the name under whom the property is purchased, it can be seen that the son of the assessee is a direct relation and as per the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in case of CIT(A) Vs. Kamal Vahal 351 ITR 4 where assessee purchased new house in name of his wife, the claim under Section 54 is held valid. Thus, the exemption could not be denied if entire investment had come out of proceeds of old property. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is not justified in light of the decision in case of Kamal Vahal (supra). Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allo…

Anitha Bobba, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1863/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri N. Srikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 158BSection 250(6)Section 54Section 54B

…e is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts:- (i) CIT vs. Gurnam Singh [2008] 170 Taxman 160 (Punjab & Haryana). (ii) CIT vs. V. Natarajan [2006] 154 Taxman 399 (Mad.) (iii) CIT vs. Kamal Wahal [2013] 30 Taxmann.com 34 (Delhi) and (iv) CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 Taxmann.com 307 (Delhi). 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the ld. Revenue Authorities. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record and the decisions cited by the Ld. AR. On the plain reading of the decisions cited by t…

Balwant Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1105/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…ot yet started as the assessee could not take possession of the plot under reference. In view of these facts also the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act. 8 The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:  CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal 351 ITR 4(Del)  Laxmi Narayan vs. CIT 402 ITR 117 ( Rajasthan)  ITO Vs. S. Vardarajan 33 TTJ (Mad.) 466 Third  CIT Vs. V. Natarajan 287 ITR 271 (Madras) Where entire consideration had flown from assessee he cannot be denied deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Since entire consideration has been flown from assessee and no consideration had flown from any other p…

Bhagwan Swroop Pathak, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Haryana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2754/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishibhagwan Swroop Pathak Vs Ito H. No. 651, 1St Floor, Section 10A, Ward-1(3) Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon , Haryana Pan: Aappp6478A Pin: 122006 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 54

…n’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. R. L. Sood (254 ITR 727 & the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs. Sambandam Uday Kumar 345 ITR389. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT(A) Vs. Kamal Vahal 351 ITR 4 wherein the assessee 5 claimed the benefit of Section 54 when the property purchased in the name of wife and the Hon’ble High Court allowed the said claim. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer rightly added the long term capital gain as the assessee failed to prove that the purchase of the property comes under the ambit of Section 5…

Ramphal Hooda, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 5, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 8478/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C.A. And Ms. Umung Luthra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 260Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “F” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.8478/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2014-2015 Shri Ramphal Hooda, A- The Income Tax Officer, 102, Sheetal Vihar, Plot vs. Ward – 5, Aayakar No.10, Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 077. Bhawan, Rohtak. PAN AAQPH4463A Haryana. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ved Jain, C.A. And Ms. Umung Luthra, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by As…