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

Shri Sukhram Mukati, Indore vs. The ITO WD-3(3), Indore

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

ITA 409/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 143Section 54BSection 68Section 69Section 69A

…r terms. The Ld. CIT (A) has denied the deduction under section 54B on the ground that new agricultural land purchased is not in the name of the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee relying on the decisions in the case of CIT v. Kamal Wahal [2013] 351 ITR 4(Del); [2013] 214 Taxman 287(Del); [2013] 30 taxmann.com 34(Del), ACIT v. Deepak Kumar Dhawan [I.T.A. No. 150/Ind/2013 A.Y. 08-09- Shri Sukhram Mukati & Shri Vishnu Mukati v. ITO 3(3) Indore/ I.T.A. No. 409&410/Ind/2014/A.Y.08-09 Page 7 of 26 Indore-Trib] (PB54), Ghanshyam Mali v. ITO [I.T.A. No. 547/Ind/2013 A.Y. 08-09 dated 10.08.2015-Indore…

Jitendra B. Faria, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6792/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Shri Jitendra V Faria Vs. Ito 18(2)(1), Mumbai- Room No.09, ‘C’Block, 3Rd 400012 Floor, Hari Niwas, L J Road, Shivaji Park, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aaapf1956E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 54

…here is no warrant for giving too strict an interpretation to the word "assessee" as that would frustrate the object of granting exemption. " 10. This decision of the Delhi High Court was subsequently followed by Delhi High Court itself in case of Kamal Wahal 351 ITR 4. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the action of AO for restricting exemption u/s.54 to the extent of 50% of the value of the new house. The CIT(A) was also not justified in directing the AO to tax entire capital gain on sale of old property in the hands of assessee when 50% of the old house was owned by his wife and s…

Vivek Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Us. The Assessee Has Also Purchased A Residential Property On 23.05.2011 For A Purchase Consideration Of Rs. 30,00,000/- In The Name Of His Wife, Smt. Nikita Jain & Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Which Is In Dispute Before Us.

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Samadhani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)
Section 54F

…nd if substantive requirement are fulfilled, benefit granted by the Parliament should not be taken away for small and irrelevant inconsistencies. Further, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (351 ITR 4), wherein, in the context of section 54F of the Act and purchase of house in the name of assessee’s wife, it was held that the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his name nor is it necessary that it should be purchased and exclusively in his name. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court…

Naresh Kumar, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6391/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Kirti Karan Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr. DR
Section 54BSection 54F

…Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dinesh Verma (2015) 233 Taxmann 409 (P&H) has held that the benefit of deduction cannot be allowed when a new property is purchased in the name of wife, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (2013)351 ITR 4 (Del), has held that deduction u/s 54F cannot be denied if the property is not purchased in own name. Since the assessee falls within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Verma (supra), I hold that the assessee was not right in claiming the benefit of section 54B in purchasing new property in the name of his wife. The impugned order…

Late Sh. Prem Singh Through Legal Heir Sh. Raj Kumar, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 6389/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Kirti Karan Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr. DR
Section 54BSection 54F

…Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dinesh Verma (2015) 233 Taxmann 409 (P&H) has held that the benefit of deduction cannot be allowed when a new property is purchased in the name of wife, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (2013)351 ITR 4 (Del), has held that deduction u/s 54F cannot be denied if the property is not purchased in own name. Since the assessee falls within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Verma (supra), I hold that the assessee was not right in claiming the benefit of section 54B in purchasing new property in the name of his wife. The impugned order…

Sukhdev Singh Katyal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6310/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2011-12 Sukhdev Singh Katyal, Vs. Ito, Wz-195A/1, First Floor, Ward-69(2), Gali No.4, Virender Nagar, Civic Centre, Delhi. Jln Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Arops4305F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.L. Sharma, Advocate Department By : Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2017

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 54Section 54F

…njab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Dinesh Verma (2015) 233 Taxmann 409 (P&H) has held that the benefit of deduction cannot be allowed when a new property is purchased in the name of wife, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (2013)351 ITR 4 (Del), has held that deduction u/s 54F cannot be denied if the property is not purchased in own name. Since the assessee falls within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, respectfully following the precedent in Kamal Wahal (supra), I hold that the assessee was right in claiming the benefit of section 54 in purchasing new property in…

Kalpana Sundar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-8(1), Chennai

ITA 2153/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2153/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. Kalpana Sundar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 4/3, Sri Janakas, 2Nd Cross Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(1), Street, East Kamakodi Nagar, Chennai. Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. [Pan:Cnvps4092J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 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) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of Tax Exemption Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54FSection 64

…ed as under: “7. The next objection of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has purchased the new house in the joint name of the assessee and her daughter. The Assessing Officer distinguished the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Kamal Wahal (2013) 351 ITR 4 on the ground that the assessee before the Delhi High Court was living with his wife together. The fact is that the assessee before the Delhi High Court purchased the house jointly with that of his wife. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee purchased a house in the joint name along with her daughter, the asse…

DCIT, Dehradun vs. Smt. Nilima Dutt, Dehradun

ITA 352/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajesh Gupta & Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50Section 54Section 54E

…unt towards making payment of sale proceeds of the new property. 12. To support his contentions, ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the judgments cited as – (i) CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora – (2012) 342 ITR 38 (Del.); and (ii) CIT vs. Kamal Wahal – (2013) 351 ITR 4 (Del.), rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The ratio of both the judgments is that, “when new residential 8 ITA No.352/Del./2016 property has been purchased by the assessee in joint names of assessee and his close relative by investing the entire amount of long term capital gain, the assessee is entitled for full exemption u/s 54F of the Act.…

ITO 16(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jayant Kumar J Choksi, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7280/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 19(2)(1), Shri Jayantkumar Javerilal 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Choksi, Tardeo Road, 524, Sandhurst Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 007 Svp Road, Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aaepc3646E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R. Revenue By : Shri, Rajesh Ojha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri, Rajesh Ojha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 19(2)(1), Shri Jayantkumar Javerilal 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Choksi, Tardeo Road, 524, Sandhurst Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 007 SVP Road, Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 PAN: AAEPC3646E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R. Revenue by : Shri, Rajesh Ojha, D.R. Date of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2016 O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member: This appeal is filed…

Viswanath S. Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7358/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. DevendraFor Respondent: Shri A. Kumbhar
Section 148Section 54

…existing in the new flat shall be with the assessee. The learned relied upon the judgment in the case of DIT(Intl.Taxation) Vs Jennifer Bhide (2012) 349 ITR 80(Kar.) rendered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and in the case of CIT Vs Kamal Wahal (2013) 351 ITR 4 (Del.) rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 10. The learned AR further argued that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as well as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are later decisions therefore, the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments should be preferred. The learned AR further argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

Sh. Jai Prakash S/O Sh. Girdhari Lal, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result ground no 2 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5456/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shrii.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sheodan Singh Bhaddoria, Sr. DR
Section 54BSection 55Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI (CIRCUIT BENCH AT MEERUT) BEFORE : SHRII.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5456/Del./2014 (Asstt. Year:2009-10) Jai Prakash S/o. Sh. Girdhari Lal, ITO C/o. Sh. V.K. Goel, Advocate, Vs. Ward-1(3), 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut Meerut PAN:CBWPP2425D (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing 15/12/2015 Date of pronouncement 19/02/2016 Assessee by: Sh. V.K. Goel, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Sheodan Singh Bhaddoria, Sr. DR O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 01. This appeal is preferred by the assess…