CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia

216 ITR 376High Court1995#2471 most cited

What is CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia authority for?

An assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54 for long-term capital gains on a new residential house where a flat under construction is treated as 'construction' and not a purchase, allowing the benefit of the three-year completion period.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia · Hilla J.B. Wadia · Section 54 · capital gains exemption · new residential house · construction of house · flat under construction · three-year period · purchase vs construction · long-term capital gains

Also reported as

69 Taxmann 114

Sections most often in play

Section 54Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 17Section 2(47)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54(2)long-term capital assetdate of transfersection 54indexed cost of acquisitionsection 54ftransfer of capital assetcost of improvementsection 45long term capital gainslong term capital gain

Judgments citing CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia

Rajni Kumar Wife of Shri Brig. Narender Kumar H.No.394, Sector-21, Gurgaonn, Gurgaon vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 3188/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. SR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B’, NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajni Kumar, vs. ITO, Ward 3 (1), W/o Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (PAN : AYYPK1781A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. SR Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National F…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut vs. Prem Sapra, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 54

…imperative. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, i.e., the assessee is entitled to exemption in terms of section 54 of the Act" ➤245 ITR 727, CIT vs. R L Sood (Delhi H.C.). ➤211 ITR 804, CIT vs. LaxmichandNarpalNagda (deceased) (Bombay H.C.). ➤216 ITR 376, CIT Vs. Mrs. Hilla JB Wadia (Bom. H.C.). 12 ACIT v. Prem Sapra A.Y. 2021-22 ➤ 345 ITR 389, CIT vs. SambandamUdayakumar (Karnataka H.C.). ➤ 302 ITR 286, CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari and Another (Madras H.C.). ➤ 224 ITR 106, Smt. Shashi Varma Vs. CIT (MP). ➤345 ITR 389, CIT vs. SambandamUdayakumar (Karnataka H.C.) ➤ITAT Delhi Bench order dated 23/01…

Sheela Deepak Gundecha, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 1498/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Pune05 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

…e within the period specified u/s.54 of the Act, in my considered opinion, the assessee deserves to get the claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act. I draw support from the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia (1995) 216 ITR 376 (Bombay). 10. So far as the quantum of deduction is concerned, in the return of income, the assessee has claimed the deduction of Rs.9,27,468/- since it was the amount of long term capital gain but now the long term capital gain has been reworked at Rs.27,65,049/-. In the written submissions filed before the ld.CIT(A) placed in the paper book ru…

Margi Joy Desi, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2377/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR
Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM I.T.A. No. 2377/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Margi Joy Desai Asst Commissioner of Income Tax 1703/B, lady Ratan Towers, (Akhilesh Srivastava) Danik Shivneri Marg, Worli, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400012. PAN : ABRPB3805E Assessee) : Respondent) Assessee/Appellant by : Shri Shyam Saboo, CA Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR : 22.07.2024 Date of Hearing : 30.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the assessee is…

ACIT, Circle, Shimla vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 54F

…tion of new from the date of transfer of the original asset. The above circulars are binding on revenue authorities under s. 119 of the Act. He referred the decision rendered by Honorable High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia [1995] 216 ITR 376. wherein the Honorable High Court has held that it is a case of "Construction". Reliance was placed on the judgment of Honorable Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhatt [1986] 28 Taxman 578/[1987] 165 ITR 571. wherein it has been held at it is immaterial whether the construction of the new house was started before the dat…

Indira Giri, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Deparment Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 511/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 cuke Indira Giri Assessing Officer, 1287, Mali Mohalla, outside Vs. Ward-2(5), Income Tax Office, Jaipur. Chandpole Gate, Jaipur. . LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABBPG 7713 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Ma…

Dhananjay Madhukar Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledhananjay Madhukar Naik V. Ito 12(3)(3) 306, Meghdoot Chsl, Sahaji Raje Marg Room No. 1631, 16Th Floor Koldongri, Vile Parle (W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400057 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Alrpn7498M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Anil Masand Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

…tated hereinabove, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to delete this addition of Rs 19 lakhs too" In the case of Commissioner of Income tax v/s Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia (216 ITR 376), the High Court of Bombay held that "In this connection, circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes bearing No. 471, dated 15-10-1986 could be taken into consideration, which dealt with the investment inflats under the self-financing scheme of the Delhi Development Authority. The Board stated in the circular that when an allotment letter is i…

JCIT (OSD), Circle-17(1), Mumbai vs. Nafisa Asgar Mun, Mumbai

ITA 443/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. A.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…u/s.54 is not correct based on the following case laws (i) CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 5 Ms. Nafisa Asgar Mun 571 [1986] 28 Taxman 578 (ii) Mustans ir VS ITO- [2017] 88 taxmann.com 275 (Mumbai - Trib.) (iii) CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J B Wadia [1995] 216 ITR 376 (iv) Asstt. CIT v. Sagar Nitin Parikh [IT Appeal No. 6399 (Mum.) of 2011, dated 3-6-2015] (v) CIT VS Bharti Mishra- [2014] 41 taxmann.com 50 (Delhi HC) (vi) DCIT Vs Dr.Chalasani Mallikarjuna Rao- [2016] 75 taxmann.com 270 (Visakhapatnam Trib.) The appellant further stated that depositing the amount of Capital Gain in CGAS A/c was not required as…

Hemant Shridhar Phatak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-35(1)(5) Presently-ITO-42(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 268/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

For Appellant: S/Shri Devang Divecha &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh Chourasia, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54(1)

…date of transfer of old residential asset. The section is silent about commencement of construction. The section only mandates that a residential house is constructed within three years after the date of transfer. 7.1 In the case of CIT vs. Hilla J B Wadia, 216 ITR 376 (Bom), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that where an assessee has utilized capital gains from transfer of old residential asset towards purchase of flat in a building under construction, ‘this must also be viewed as a method of constructing residential tenement.’ The only other condition that has to be satisfied is that the assesse…

Hemant Shridhar Phatak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-35(1)(5) Presently-ITO-42(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 267/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.267 एवं 268 /मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2013-14)

For Appellant: S/Shri Devang Divecha &For Respondent: Shri Dinesh Chourasia, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54(1)

…date of transfer of old residential asset. The section is silent about commencement of construction. The section only mandates that a residential house is constructed within three years after the date of transfer. 7.1 In the case of CIT vs. Hilla J B Wadia, 216 ITR 376 (Bom), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that where an assessee has utilized capital gains from transfer of old residential asset towards purchase of flat in a building under construction, ‘this must also be viewed as a method of constructing residential tenement.’ The only other condition that has to be satisfied is that the assesse…

DCIT-1, (International Taxation), Hyderabad vs. Syama Reddy Malireddy, Hyderabad

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

ITA 325/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…following case laws : 7 Smt. Syama Reddy Malireddy i. Sanjeev Lal Vs. CIT – 365 ITR 389 (SC). ii. Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs. CIT – 239 ITR 775 (SC). iii. Smt. Shashi Varma Vs. CIT – 224 ITR 106 (Madhya Pradesh High Court). iv. CIT Vs. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia – 216 ITR 376 (Bombay High Court). v. CIT Vs. R.L. Sood – 245 ITR 727 (Delhi High Court) vi. Balraj Vs. CIT – 254 ITR 22 (Delhi High Court). vii. CIT Vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari – 244 ITR 352 (Calcutta High Court). viii. Andhra Networks Vs. DCIT – 167 TTJ 496 (ITAT Hyderabad Bench). ix. CIT Vs. Shahajada Begam – 173 ITR 397 (Andhra Pradesh High Court). x. CIT…

ACIT Circle-1(3)(1), Int. Tax., New Delhi vs. Rajan Govil, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7525/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 7525/Del/2019 (A.Y 2014-15)

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54

…pleted flat ACIT Vs. Akashay Sobti, (ITA No. 5900-01/Del/2015) Dated • 10.05.2019 (Page no 4 of Ann 'B') Mustansir I Tehsildar Vs. Income Tax Officer (Mumbai) (2018) 168 • ITD 523 (Mumbai-Tribunal) (Page no 15 of Ann 'B') CIT Vs. Mrs Hilla J B Wadia (1995) 216 ITR 376 (Bombay High • Court) 6 ITA. 7525/Del/2019 ACIT Vs. Rajan Govil, ND c) In view of above submission it is clear that the AO has treated the flat under construction as purchase of ready to move flat and not a case of construction, Whereas The Hon'ble Tribunal and the Court decision cited above treats the same as case of construction and not a pu…

ACIT Central-2 Indore, Indore vs. Shri .Gaurav Tekriwal, Indore

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54FSection 55(2)(a)Section 57

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 ACIT, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: ACPPT 1628 Q Assessee by Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, ARs Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-o…

Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(4), Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

ITA 1209/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 234ASection 53ASection 54

…52 taxmann.com 277 (Mumbai Tribunal) The moot question is whether the agreement with builder to purchase a flat that is going to be constructed, is the case of purchase or construction. In this regard, Hon’ble Court of Mumbai, in the case of Hilla T.B. Vadia 216 ITR 376 held that it is a case of 3 Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia construction. Further, on identical question, i.e., whether the booking of flat with the builder is to be considered a case of ACIT vs. Sardar Kaur Sujan Singh and it was held to be a case of construction. In recerh/Jidtlgements in the case of CIT vs. Bindra Kumar (2001). 114 taxmann.com 266 H…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-24(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavesh Surendra Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 998/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.998/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ Bhavesh Surendra Shah Room No.601, Piramal 34/P, Laxmi Industrial Vs. Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Estate, New Link Road, Lane, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri-W, Mumbai- Mumbai-400012. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps0265M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Dalpat Shah Revenue By: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 12.03.2022 For Ay. 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Revenue Reads As Under: - “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Deduction U/S 54(1) Of Rs.2,29,33,659/- Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Is Eligible For Deduction U/S 54(1) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Provided The Assessee Invests In A New Capital Asset Within A Period Of One Year Before Or Two Years After The Date Transfer Of Old House, The Taxpayer Should Acquire Another Residential House Or Should Construct A Residential House Within A Period Of Three Years From The Date Of Transfer Of The Old House.

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 54Section 54(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.998/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2018-19) ACIT-24(1) बिधम/ Bhavesh Surendra Shah Room No.601, Piramal 34/P, Laxmi Industrial Vs. Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Estate, New Link Road, Lane, Lalbaug, Parel, Andheri-W, Mumbai- Mumbai-400012. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAEPS0265M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Mr. Dalpat Shah Revenue by: Mr. Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 01/09/2022 घोषणा की तारी…

Shri Reji Easow, Mumbai vs. ITO - 3(5), Thane

In the result, this appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1557/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 54

…ITA No. 1557/MUM/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar, (Vice President) And Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member] Assessment Year: 2015-16 Reji Easow ……………….………Appellant Flat No. 203, Building No. 15, Bankston Building, Plot A - Rodas Enclave, Ghodbunder Road, Thane West,400607 [PAN: AADPE4213G] Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5) Thane ……………………Respondent Appearances: Rajesh Athavle for the Appellant Neha Thakur for the Respondent Date of conclusion of hearing : 05.01.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 08.03.2022 O R D E R Per Bench:- 1…

Mr.M.George Joseph vs. Dy.Commissioner of Incomet Tax Officer

In the result, order of the

ITA/238/2015HC Karnataka12 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54F

…in 'BAJAJ TEMPO LTD. VS. CIT', (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC), 'CIT VS. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.', (1994) 196 ITR 149 6 (SC) and decisions in 'CIT VS. SMT. BRINDA KUMARI', (2002) 253 ITR 343 (DEL.), 'CIT VS. MRS. HILLA J.B.WADIA', (1995) 216 ITR 376 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. SAMBANDAM UDAYKUMR', (2012) 345 ITR 389 and 'CIT VS. SADARMAL KOTHARI', (2008) 302 ITR 286 (MAD.). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that all the authorities under the Act have held that assessee has not satisfied the conditions prescribed in Section 54F of the Act and is therefore, not enti…

Avtar Krishen Jalla, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 29(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 9859/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Avtar Krishen Jalla, Vs Ito, D-6, Pamposh Enclave, Ward 29(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadpj6244N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Upender Bhatt, Fca Revenue By : Shri Farath Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Upender Bhatt, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Farath Khan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ns:- i. Bal Kishan Atal vs. ACIT, (2019) 176 ITD 0330 (Delhi-Trib); 5 ii. Mrs. Seetha Subramanian Vs. ACIT (1996) 59 ITD 0094 (Madras-Trib); iii. Satishchandra Gupta vs. AO (1995) 53 TTJ (Del) 578/(1995) 54 ITD 508 (Del); iv. CIT vs. Hilla J.B. Wadia (1995) 216 ITR 376 (Bom); 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the CIT(A). ] 7. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the Assessing Officer in the i…

Smt. Harminder Kaur, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(4)Section 148Section 54

…hat booking of flat with private builder is to be considered as case of construction for the purpose of section 54 of the Act: (a) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs RL Sood (2000) 108 taxman 227 (Delhi) (b) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Mrs. Hilla JB Wadia (1995) 216 ITR 376 (Bombay) (c) Ram Prakash Miyan Bazaz Vs. DCIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 550 (Jaipur-Trib) 9 ITA No. 2656/Del./2017 (d) Smt Usha Vaid Vs ITO (2012) 25 taxmann.com 188 (Amitsar-Trib) 10. On the contrary, the learned DR relied on the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that in the case of the assessee construction was completed beyond the period of t…

Jytsna Sunderlal Shroff, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

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

ITA 216/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A. Mohan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…nded over to the assessee on 26.03.2018 ; the delay in obtaining the possession was not attributable to the assessee. In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the decision by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia [1995] 216 ITR 376 (Bom), CIT v. Girish L. Ragha [2016] 289 CTR 213 (Bom) and the order of the Tribunal in the case of Hasmukh N Gala v. ITO [2017] 83 taxmann.com 49 (Mumbai-Trib.). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) explains that as the new property in which capital gain is invested is not purchased/constructed before one year or withi…