CIT v. Kapil Kumar Agarwal & Ors.

382 ITR 56High Court2016#14173 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 54 Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 54F Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 54f date of transfer section 54 section 45 long term capital gain previous year transfer section 143(3)india nfac

Judgments citing CIT v. Kapil Kumar Agarwal & Ors.

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2962/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

…ITA No. 3398/Mum/2023, ITAT Mumbai P a g e | 10 Azizul Ghani (AY: 2015-16) 12. Since money doesn't have any colour, it is not necessary that the same money received on sale of an asset is required to be utilised. - CIT Vs. Shri Kapil Kumar Agarwal, [2016] 382 ITR 56, Punjab and Haryana HC - Philip Koshy Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 415/Del/2022, ITAT Delhi - Shri Jignesh Jaysukhlal Ghiya Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 324/Ahd/2020, ITAT Ahmedabad 13. Beneficial provisions are to be construed liberally. - Parikh Amitkumar Mahendrabhai Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1199/Ahd/2025, ITAT Ahmedabad 14. Ld. Departmental Representative relied on…

LATE HINA HARENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. WARD 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3317/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

…eal No.1825 of 2009 judgment dated 07/10/2009] [confirming the decision of the Tribunal reported in (2008) 20 SOT 468 (Mum)] 4 ITA No. 3317/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (b) M. George Joseph(2022)440 ITR 589 (Karn). (c) CIT Vs. Kapil Kumar Agarwal (2016) 382 ITR 56 (P&H). (d) Ms. Moturi Lakshmi (2020) 428 ITR 462 (Mad) (e) Smt. Sabita Devi Agarwal (2019) 69 ITR (Trib) 231 (Kol). (f) Hansa Shah Vs. ITO (2019) 69 ITR (Trib) 334 (Mum) (g) CIT Vs. R.Srinivasan (2010) 235 CTR 588 (Mad). The Learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant further submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal in the above decis…

PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 234ASection 54

…he residential house is constructed, the capital gain is not to be charged under Section 45 of the said Act.” 7. Ratio of the decision squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s case. We further observed that in the case of CIT Vs. Kapil Kumar Aggarwal (382 ITR 56) the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that section 54F of the Act, nowhere envisages that sale consideration obtained by the assessee from original capital asset is mandatorily required to be utilized for purposes of meeting cost of new asset. It was, therefore, held that where investment made by the assessee although not entirely sour…

RAJENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

…have been overruled or different view has been taken by the Tribunal in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the assessee and this proposition have been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Courts in the following cases:- I. CIT vs Kapil Kumar Agarwal (2016) 382 ITR 56 (P&H) II. CIT vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati) III. ITO vs K C Gopalan (2000) 107 Taxman 591 (Kerela). 7 12 Thus, the aforesaid finding of the learned CIT (A) is reversed and disallowance of Rs.2.15 Crores is deleted. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th March, 2024…

DCIT, CC, GZBD , GZBD vs. ANJALI MITTAL , GZBD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Anjali Mittal, Income Tax, B-7, Ashok Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201 001. Ghaziabad. Pan Aigpm4257R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 54FSection 54F(1)(b)Section 69A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Smt. Anjali Mittal, Income Tax, B-7, Ashok Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201 001. Ghaziabad. PAN AIGPM4257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department by : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.03.2023 Date of 06.04.2023 pronouncement : O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Ta…

MRS. RAJYASHREE SHYAM,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 18 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 2114/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2114/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-2017. Rajyashree Shyam, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.A-1405, Of Income Tax, Radiance Mandarin, Corporate Circle 18(1) No.1, Pallavaram Chennai 600 034. Thioraipakkam Raidal Road, Chennai 600 097. [Pan Agcps 0649F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2114/CHNY/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2016-2017. Rajyashree Shyam, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.A-1405, of Income Tax, Radiance Mandarin, Corporate Circle 18(1) No.1, Pallavaram Chennai 600 034. Thioraipakkam Raidal Road, Chennai 600 097. [PAN AGCPS 0649F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri.R. Vijayaragha…

YATIN PRAKASH TELANG,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-21(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal assessee is allowed

ITA 1136/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prakash G JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The appeals without any substance. Hence, the same stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.” 12. Similarly, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case CIT vs. Kapil Kumar Agarwal (Punjab & Haryana) (2016) 382 ITR 56 has considered this issue and held that the assessee has to purchase or construct a house property during the period specified under section 54F of the Act in order to get benefit thereunder. Section 54F of the Act, nowhere envisages that the sale consideration obtained by the assessee from the original capital asset is mandatorily required to be…