CIT v. Kuldeep Singh

49 Taxmann.com 167High Court2014#4939 most cited

What is CIT v. Kuldeep Singh authority for?

Section 54 of the Income-tax Act allows deduction for purchase of a residential house even if the transaction involves an agreement with a builder, payment linked to construction stages, and possession is obtained later, as the term 'purchased' has a wider connotation beyond a registered sale deed or immediate possession.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kuldeep Singh · section 54 · section 53A · date of transfer · long-term capital asset · capital gains · residential property · agreement with builder · purchase of flat · prescribed period · Transfer of Property Act

Also reported as

270 CTR 561226 Taxmann 133

Sections most often in play

Section 54Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 53ASection 139Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)purposive interpretationlong-term capital assetdate of transfersection 54section 45long term capital gainprevious yeartransferprescribedsection 250person

Judgments citing CIT v. Kuldeep Singh

Kapil Kumar Agarwal, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 54Section 54F

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. DCIT, C/o. IPSAA House ANM & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon PAN: AACPA2412L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv Revenue by: Smt Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/03/2019 Date of pronouncement 30/04/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, individual against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Gu…

ITO 31(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pravin Chand Sehgal (HUF), Mumbai

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 3416/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Pravin Chand Sehgal (HUF), 31(2)(5), Unit No.204/206, Mumbai M/s. Shree Mahavir Textiles Vs. Mills, Kamla Bhawan, Sharma Indl. Estate, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063 PAN: AAAHP2624R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Shekhar Gupta, A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present ap…

Shri Shri Gurvinder Singh Sasan, L/H of Late Shri Jagdish Singh Sasan, Nagpur vs. The ITO-Ward-2(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/NAG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhsh. Gurvinder Singh Sasan, Vs Ito, L/H Of Late Sh. Jagdish Singh Sasan, Ward–2(2), C/O–Kasjmir Bar & Restaurant, 3Ed Floor, Ayakar Gaddogudam Chowk, Nagpur–440001. Bhawan, Nagpur Pan–Aeyps3694G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.K.P.Dewani, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Jitesh Kumar Date Of Hearing 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2018

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…ances, the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sh. Hansmukh N.Gala in ITA No.7512/Mum/2013 vide order dated 19.08.2015 for A.Y. 2010-11 on identical facts considered the issue following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kuldeep Singh 270 CTR 561 (Del.) and allowed the claim of the assessee by observing in para 7 to 8 as under:- 7. “It is accepted position and it is not disputed by the Revenue that Rs.37,86,273/- had been invested by the assessee for purchase of the property at Gurgaon. However, legal title in the said property was not passed or transferred to the assessee within a perio…

Shri Uday Sood, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4834/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Shri Uday Sood Vs. The I.T.O 1005, Sector – 15 Ward – 8(2) Faridabad, Haryana New Delhi Pan : Adzps 5454 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr- DR
Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Vrinda P. Isaac reported in [2011] 64 DTR 376. 11. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kuldeep Singh reported in 270 CTR 561, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that the word ‘purchase’ used in sub-section (2) of section 54 is not restricted or confined to registered sale deed or even possession but has wider connotation. Thus, 7 where the assessee has entered into construction linked payment plan for purchase of residential propert…