How many judgments cite CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia?

47 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia (216 ITR 376), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 144B, Section 17.

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 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 54 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 17 Section 2(47)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54(2)long-term capital asset date of transfer section 54 indexed cost of acquisition section 54f transfer of capital asset cost of improvement section 45 long term capital gains long term capital gain

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

Kusumlata Sonthalia, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1151/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri RadheyShyam, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 54Section 54F

…efore, entitled for deduction u/s 54. The most question is whether the agreement with builder to purchase a flat there 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 J. B. Vadia 216 ITR 376 held that it is a case construction. Further, on identical question, i.e. whether the booking of flat with the builder is to be considered a case of purchase or construction was considered by Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Sardar Kaur Sujan Singh and it was held to be a case of construction. 5.7 After discussing the legal posit…

Income Tax Officer 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harjinder Kaur P. Bhasin, Mumbai

Accordingly this appeal by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 1995/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 1995/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) ITO-23(1)(5) Harjinder Kaur P. Bhasin Vs. Room No. 113 2, Silver Craft Building 1st Floor 16th Road, Bandra-West Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 050. Tardeo Mumbai-400 007. PAN : AAEPB8089N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Subhash Chhajed & Ms. Deepika Chhajed Department by Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date of Hearing 01.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement 24.10.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of…

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)

…consideration was paid within two years, the deduction u/s 54F of the Act is to be allowed in respect of the entire cost of the new flat, he relied on the following decisions : i) CIT Vs. Bharati C. Kothari [244 ITR 352 (Cal)] ii) CIT Vs. J.B. Hilla Wadia [216 ITR 376 (Bom)]. iii) Shashi Verma Vs. CIT [224 ITR 106 (MP)]. Ld.A.R. further submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in a recent decision in the case of PCIT Vs. Vembu Vaidyanath in ITA No.1459/2016 dated 22.01.2019 has held that the date of allotment be considered to be the date on which the purchaser of property can be said to have been acqu…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -16(1), Mumbai vs. Anees Ahmed Bazmee, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4631/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiacit-16(1) Vs. Anees Ahmed Bazmee Room No.439 1502, Deep Tower Chs Aaykar Bhawan New Link Road, Oshiwara M.K.Road Andheri (West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053 Pan/Gir No.Aakpb2402P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 50C

…eld for more than 36 months and accordingly, the surplus from sale of property is assessable under the head long term capital gain. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Hilla J.B.Wadia (1995) 216 ITR 376 and also the circular issued by the CBDT 672 of 16/12/1993, where it was clarified that for the purpose of date of acquisition of property, the date of allotment of property needs to be considered. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly held that property in question was a long term capital asset and surplus from sale of suc…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Seema Sobti, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5899/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54E

…r construction 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 Mrs. Hilla J. B. Wadia (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 Vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhatt (1887) 165 ITR 571 (Karn), wherein it has been held at it is immaterial whether the construction of the new house was started before the ate of transf…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Pradeep Sobti, New Delhi

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 5901/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

…construction 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 Mrs. Hilla J. B. Wadia (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 Vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhatt (1887) 165 ITR 571 (Karn), wherein it has been held at it is immaterial whether the construction of the new house was started before the ate of transf…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Akshay Sobti, New Delhi

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 5900/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

ITO, Ward - 2(3), Siliguri vs. Smt. Saroj Rani Gupta, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1613/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…she was entitled to claim exemption under section 54F. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Sardarmal Kothari [302 ITR 286] and that of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia [216 ITR 376], he contended that the only requirement for claiming exemption under section 54F is to make the investment in purchase of a residential house and there is no requirement that the construction of the new house should be completed within that period and the assessee gets possession of the said flat. As regards the other reasons given by the Assess…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(3), Mumbai vs. Vishal Dilip Sankhe, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4376/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishore, AR

Section 292BSection 54FSection 56(2)(v)Section 56(2)(vii)

…st installment of price of flat within two years of sale of original property would entitle Assessee to claim exemption in respect of capital gain even though construction of flat was not completed within two years. 24. In CIT v. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia [1995] 216 ITR 376 (Bom.), it was observed that the Board had stated in Circular No. 471, dated 15-10-1986 that when an allotment letter is issued to an allottee under this scheme on payment of the first installment of the cost of construction, the allotment is final unless it is cancelled. The allottee, thereupon, gets title to the property on the issuance of the…

Smt.Manju Mahendra Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Section 45Section 54

…the new asset on 26/03/2013. The ratio laid down in Amritlal B. Shahu & Ors. vs Income Tax Officer (ITA No.265/Mum/2015, etc) order dated 31/08/2018, supports the case of the assessee. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Mrs. Hila J. B. Wadia (1995) 216 ITR 376 held that booking of flat in an apartment under construction must also be viewed as constructing residential tenements and thus the case of the assessee should be treated as a case of “Construction” and not as a case of “purchases”. As per section 54, construction of new residential property should be completed within three years after the da…

ACIT 26(1), Mumbai vs. Gulshan H Bhaktiani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 623/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhacit- 26(1) Gulshan H Bhaktiani Room No. 701, C-11, 133A, Kalpataru Residency, 7Th Floor, Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Opp Cine Planet, Sion, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400022. Pan: Acupb4663J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Milind Patil (DR)For Respondent: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT- 26(1) Gulshan H Bhaktiani Room No. 701, C-11, 133A, Kalpataru Residency, 7th Floor, BKC, Bandra (E), Vs. Opp Cine Planet, Sion, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400022. PAN: ACUPB4663J Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Milind Patil (DR) Respondent by : None Date of Hearing : 04.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 06.09.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by Revenue under Section 253 of Income-tax Act is directe…

Jenniffer Chakravarty, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Cir-3, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 514/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit, Circle-1, Siliguri Vs. Smt. Jennifer Chakraborty St. Michael’S School, 2Nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigra, Siliguri, Pin-734010. Siliguri "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acppc 9278 B (Revenue) .. (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 54

…ssessment Year 2008-09, order dated 29.11.2013 wherein similar facts were discussed and it was held as under: “9. Further, Board's Circular No. 471 dated 15-10-1986, has also been considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hilla J.B. Wadia 216 ITR 376 (Bom), it was held that Section 54 of the Act has to be construed in the context of the manner in which residential properties are now being constructed in a city like Bombay where, looking to the cost of the land, co-operative housing societies are being formed for constructing a building in which flats are allotted to members. This must also be…

DCIT, Cir-1, Siliguri vs. Smt Jennifer Chakraborty, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 400/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2018AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 54

ITO 26(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Gope G. Shahani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6895/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish T. PunjabiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR

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

…is reflected in the Balance Sheet and the bank statements that have been filed before the AO at the time of assessment. 7. The above facts were considered and also the case law of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia [1995] 216 ITR 376 (Bombay), wherein it is held as under:- Under the terms of the agreement of the assessee with the society, the assessee obtained a right to take possession of a specific flat bearing Nos. 7-A and B on the seventh floor of the said society. The assessee under the In these circumstances, we have to see whether the assessee has complied with the re…

DCIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. Poonam Anil Dalmia, Mumbai

ITA 3471/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrig. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3471/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar P. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar

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

…ied and hence the same cannot be allowed to the assessee. 5. On the other hand Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee relied upon the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and drawn our attention to the following judgments:- 1. CIT vrs. Mrs. Hilla J. B. Wadia (1995) 216 ITR 376 (Bom HC) 2. Shri Hasmukh N. Gala Vrs. ITO(2015) 125 DTR 0299 (Mum ITAT) 11 I.T.A. No. 3471/Mum/2016 Poonam Anil Dalmia, 3. SmtRajneet Sandhu Vrs. DCIT(2010) 133 TTJ 0064(Chand. ITAT) 4. Shri KhemchandFagwaniVrs. ITO (ITA No. 7876/M/10) dated 10th Sept 2014 (Mum ITAT) 5. M/s Rajeev B.l Shah Vrs. ITO (ITA No. 262/M/15) dated 8th Jul 2016 (Mum ITAT…

ACIT 23(1), Mumbai vs. T.K. Venkateshwaran, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8538/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 54

…“4.5 He has also cited certain case laws i.e. Smt. Shashi Varma vs. CIT [1997J 224 ITR 106 (MP), CIT vs. R.L. Scod (2000) 227 (Delhi), Balraj vs. CIT (2002] 254 ITR 22 (Delhi), SaUsh Chandra Gupta vs. A.O. [1995J 54 1TD 508 and CIT vs. Hilla J.B. Wadia [1995] 216 ITR 376 [Bom]. The appellant has also argued that entire sale proceeds were paid for all these three units merged into one remdential house, the exemption 54 has to be allowed even .when possession is delayed by a month from the end of three years from the date of agreement of sale of old property. ? 4.6 I have considered the submissions made by the appe…

Sanjeev Sinha, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1131/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1131/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 143(3)Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1131/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनाम/ Mr. Sanjeev Sinha, ITO 21(3)(2) 1303, Hiral Splender, Near Mumbai Diamond Estate, Ketki Pada, v. Dahisar (E) Mumbai 400068 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AACPS0959G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Tarun Ghia Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 27.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.…

ITO 21(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 2247/MUM/2014[2010-1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

…upon the assessment order by defending the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. On the other hand, Shri N. Jayendran, ld. counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order by placing reliance upon the decision in CIT vs Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia, (1995) 216 ITR 376 (Bom.), CIT vs Smt. Bharti C. Kothari (2000) 244 ITR 352 (Kol.), CIT vs R.L. Sud (2000) 245 ITR 727 (Del.). Our attention was also invited to the agreement dated 29/10/2009 for the purchase of the residential flat (pages 50 to 64 of the paper book) and developers confirmation along with receipt of payments 3 Pritamlal J. Doshi ITA No.1993 & 2247…

Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 1993/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavna Y Sanghavi, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-8(3)-1, Smt. Bhavna Y. Sanghavi, Room No.201, 2Nd Floor, A-38, Nandjyot Industrial बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Estate, Kurla Andheri Vs. Mumbai-400020 Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aapps4898H

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 54

…blished her bona fides by making the investment in the new property, which was already under construction, in our view, is a substantial compliance of the provisions of the Act. The ratio laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia (216 ITR 376)(Bom.) holding that the assessee should have invested substantial amount within two years after the date of sale of the property supports the case of the assessee. As per the provision of Act, the assessee was either to construct the house or to invest the sale proceeds within the stipulated period of 2/3 years from the date of transfer of asset.…