How many judgments cite CIT v. Kamal Wahal?

71 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kamal Wahal (351 ITR 4), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kamal Wahal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54F, Section 54, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 147, Section 45.

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.

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

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54b section 54f section 54 indexed cost of acquisition transfer of capital asset date of transfer section 45 long term capital gain section 50c section 50 long term capital gains

Judgments citing CIT v. Kamal Wahal

Smt. Pinky, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2222/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Berulal Suthar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 54Section 54F

…/s 54 was disallowed. Appellant placed reliance on decision of Honorable High Court of Karnataka in the case of DIT vs Mrs.Jennifer Bhide ITA 169/2011 (349 ITR 80), Mahadev Balai vs. ITO ITA No. 136/2017 - Honorable Rajasthan High Court and CIT vs Kamal Wahal 351 ITR 4 - Honorable Delhi High Court. The appellant submitted that both the Honorable High Court Rajasthan and Honorable High Court Delhi referred to the decision of Honorable High Court of Karnataka in the case of DIT vs Mrs. Jennifer Bhide ITA 169/2011 (349 ITR 80). Therefore, it should be inferred from decision of Honorable High Court of Rajasthan and H…

Sakharam Bhondve, Pune vs. Income Tax Office, Ward -9 (1), Pune

ITA 951/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 48Section 54B

…nvestment in wife’s name 8. Before me, with respect to the investment in the name of wife namely Smt. Kalinda Sakaram Bhondve (Rs.6,90,000/-), ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgement in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal, 351 ITR 4 and submitted that the reinvestment in the name of spouse is eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act and considered the purposive construction of the provisions. Further, ld. Counsel relied on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s judgement in the case of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora, 342 ITR 38 (Delhi-HC) in support of the case of the assessee. 9. On h…

Balak Ram, Ghaziabad vs. ITO), Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad

The Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8318/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Ekta Vishnoi, Sr. DR

Section 54Section 54F

…e many cases cited by the Tribunal as well as by the Hon’ble High Court deciding the issue in dispute in favour of the assesee. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (2013) 351 ITR 4 (Delhi). 3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and stated that the benefit of section 54 F can be given if the assessee has purchased the house in his name only and not in the name of his wife. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order and the case laws ci…

Jagjit Singh, Panipat vs. Pr.CIT, Karnal

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 2777/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 54B

…y followed the later decision in favour of the assessee. He has submitted that similar view have been taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38 (Del.) and CIT-XII vs. Kamal Wahal [2013] 351 ITR 4 (Del.). He has submitted that Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jai Narain vs., ITO ((supra),) is prior to dated 13th August, 2007. He has submitted that since 148 proceedings have been done on the same issue and assessing officer has accepted the explanation of assessee in the light of the Judgment of Hon’ble jurisdict…

Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…section of 54, the requirement that purchase to be made or the construction to be put up by the assessee is in the name of the assessee is not expressly stated. We further find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal reported in 351 ITR 4 has also held that the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name or exclusively in his name. 14. As far as the issue of not depositing the unutilized portion of amount subject to capital gains in capital gain account scheme is concerned, it is fact that assessee had not filed the return u/s 139(1) of the Act but…

A Vijayakumari, Pattukkottai vs. ITO, Ncw-1, Thanjavur

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

ITA 3435/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3435/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. A. Vijayakumari, The Income Tax Officer, No. 25, Pillaiyar Koil St., Pattukottai, Vs. Ward 1, Thanjavur District. Thanjavur. [Pan:Aacpv3947K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 27.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On Confirmation Of Both Income From Long Term Capital Gains & Short Term Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 54

…iberally for reasonable bonafide cause but investment in residential property is mandatory which is not in dispute in this case. The Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the case law relied on by the assessee in the case of CIT v. Shri Kamal Wahal 351 ITR 4 (Del), wherein, it was held that the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name nor is it necessary that it should be purchased exclusively in his name. Claiming exemption under section 54(1) of the Act deals with transfer of a long term capital asset being building or lands appurtenant, whereas, section 54F of the…

Rambhaj Notna, Karnal vs. ACIT (OSD), Ward- 5, Karnal

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

ITA 5683/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kirti Karan Goel, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 44ASection 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. T. S. Kapoor, Accountant Member ITA No. 5683/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ram Bhaj Notna, Vs ACIT(OSD), S/o Ram Singh, Vill.-Manglora, Ward-5, Karnal PO-Dilwara, Karnal, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADTPN4041Q Assessee by : Sh. Kirti Karan Goel, Adv. & Sh. Ram Bhaj Notna, Assessee Revenue by : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.05.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 ORDER This is an appeal filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal dated 22.06.2018. 2. The assessee…

Bharatbhai Narshibhai Patel, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 47/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Bharatbhai Narsibhai Patel The Acit बनाम/ Prop Of M/S.Pushpam Circle-2 Vs. Creation Rajkot Mehul Textile Nagar Sant Kabir Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adppp 6615 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pravin Verma, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Verma, Sr.DR

Section 54F

…ee will be eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Act if the investment has been made in the name of the spouse. In this regard, we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal reported in 351 ITR 4 wherein it was held as under: Bharatbhai Narsibhai Patel vs. ACIT Asst.Year – 2009-10 “Therefore, the predominant judicial view for the purposes of section 54F is that the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name nor is it necessary that it should be purchased exclusively in his name. It is moreover to be noted…

Kanaiyalal Muljibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.649/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR with Shri Mehul Talera, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘A’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.649/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Kanaiyalal Muljibhai Patel Vs. ITO, Ward-15(1) B-1, 53A, Sterling City Now ITO, Ward-7(1)(2) Nr.Shiv Ashish School Ahmedabad. Bopal, Ahmedabad 380058 PAN : AAMPP 6820 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divetia, AR with Shri Mehul Talera, AR Revenue by : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 14/02/2019…

Bhima Dada Kharate, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Nashik

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 55A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1596/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balu Vitthal Kharate, H. No.894/3, Gandharvawadi, Near Forest Nursery Canal, Makhmalabad, Nashik-422013 PAN : BEYPK5261C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1598/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhima Dada Kharate H. No.894/3, Gandharvawadi, Nea…

Balu Vitthal Kharate, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1596/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 55A

Kumaravelu Varadharajan @ K.Varadharajan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 617/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.617/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Kumaravelu Varadharajan @ K. The Income Tax Officer, Varadharajan, No. 11/1, Narasimma Vs. International Taxation Ii(2), Nagar, 1St Street, Kodungaiyur, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 112. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Abwpv4091P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Gopikrishna, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Gopikrishna, JCIT

Section 48Section 54Section 54E

…99 (Mad), wherein it was held that the where an assessee who owned a house property, sold the same and purchased another property in the name of his wife, exemption under section 54 shall be allowable, which was followed in the case of CIT v. Shri Kamal Wahal 351 ITR 4 (Del), wherein, it was held that the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his 4 I.T.A. No.617/Chny/16 own name nor is it necessary that it should be purchased exclusively in his name, the ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the deduction claimed under section 54 of the Act towards purchase of property in the name of…

Smt. Sheela Singh, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1394/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Sheela Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 95, Ward 4, Sheela Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Subhash Nagar, Rohtak. Rohtak-124001 (Pan: Aiqps8832A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri U.S. Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri U.S. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…laced. The Ld. AR pointed out that the sale deed duly mentioned that the purchase price had been paid by Mrs. Sheela Singh, the assessee. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Kamal Wahal reported in 351 ITR 4 (Del) wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had held that when there was no dispute that the entire investment had come out of the sale proceeds of property sold by the assessee, exemption u/s 54F was to be allowed even if the new residential property was acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’b…

Allan Emanuel Fernandes, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2493/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.M.Rajapurkar

Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद"य” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव,लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2493/PUN/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Allan Emanuel Fernandes, Mores Products, B.H. Gandhi Hospital, Nigdi, Pune-411 044 PAN : AAEPF5478M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.M.Rajapurkar : Shri Rajesh Gawli Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 23.…

Ranji Dhawan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1788/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. S.C. Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR

Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 Ranji Dhawan, Vs. ACIT, Circle 28(1) C-728, New Friends New Delhi Colony, New Delhi PAN: AADPD4279M (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri. S.C. Malhotra, CA Department By : Shri. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17.08.2018 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VICE-PRESIDENT : This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 15.1.2015 in relation to the assessment year 2007-08. 2.…

Meenakshi Satish Varma, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1542/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1542/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mrs. Meenakshi Satish Varma Ito(It)-2(1), बनाम/ 100/101, Sher E Punjab Society, Scindia House, Mumbai-400 038 Jyoti Paradise, Mahakali Caves Road, Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afapv 5167 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 18.12.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao In Not Allowing Exemption U/S.54F Amounting To Rs.62,73,840/- Out Of The Total Exemption Of Rs.1,61,84,180/- Claimed By The Appellant Allegedly On The Ground That The Residential Property Purchased By The Appellant Was Registered In Her Son'S Name & Hence The Same Does Not Qualify For Claiming Exemption U/S.54F. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That Funds For The Purchase Of Residential Flat Were Completely Utilized

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 54F

…rakash vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors, reported in (2009) 312 ITR 40 (Bom) in the same issue. Hence, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court’s decision precedent over the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (2013) 351 ITR 4 (Del) referred by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that assessee in this case has purchased two flats, one is registered in her own name and another one is registered in the name of her son. Assessee wants exemption u/s. 54F on account of both the flats. The author…

Ganesh Chawla, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 452/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Podar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena

Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 452/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Shri Ganesh Chawla The ACIT, Vs. Prop. M/s Chawala Sweets, Circle-5, 867, Ram Bhawan, Jaipur. Moti Donngari, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAOPC7441D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Podar (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :…

M/S. Emco Tiles Company, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2313/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2313/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Rastogi, DR

Section 14Section 250Section 54E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘एससी.एम.’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी एस.एस.गोदारा, "या"यक सद"य एवं "द"प कुमार के"डया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2313/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/s.Emco Tiles Company The ITO बनाम/ B-2, Shubh Shanti Apartment Ward-5(3)(10 Vs. Opp. Ashok Nagar Club Ahmedabad Anand Nagar, Paldi Ahmedabad-380 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAFE 3041 K .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ"…

Bhagwan Swaroop Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Punam Rai (D.CIT)

Section 24Section 48Section 54

…the wife then the claim of section 54 cannot be denied in support of his contention. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High in case of CIT vs. V. Natarajan 287 ITR 271 as well as decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Wahal 351 ITR 4 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name nor it is necessary that it should be purchased exclusively in his name. Therefore, the house purchase in the name of his wife was held to be eligible for the benefit u/s 54/54F. The ld AR has also relied upon t…

Sh. Ravi Kant Tyagi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 and additional ground of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2251/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiravi Kant Tyagi, Vs. Ito, Flat No. 36, Sadbhawana Apartment, Ward-46(1), 13, Ip Extn, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Abtpt3527G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA

Section 143Section 54

…st the above capital gain, the Ld. authorized representative submitted that the house property purchase in the name of the wife of the assessee is allowable as deduction in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Kamal Wahal 351 ITR 4 (Delhi) wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that having regard to the rule of purposive construction and object for which section 54 f seeks to achieve and also following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT versus Ravinder Kumar Arora 342 ITR 38 (Delhi) allowed the claim when the property was purchased in the name of wife of t…