CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum

173 ITR 397High Court1988#7284 most cited

What is CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum authority for?

Section 54 deduction for capital gains is available even if the sale deed is not registered at the time of purchase, as long as possession and control of the property are transferred.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum · section 54 · capital gains · transfer of property · unregistered sale deed · possession · control

Sections most often in play

Section 2(47)Section 54Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 54transferdocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum

Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 1, Pandharpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 548Section 54BSection 54B(1)Section 69A

…205/55 taxmann.com 536 (Delhi) 5. Balraj V C77 [2002] 254 ITR 22/123 Tasman 290 (Delhi) 6. CIT. R.1. Sood (2000) 245 ITR 727/108 Tasman 227 (Delhi) 7. CIT v. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda, [1995] 211 ITR 804/78 Taxman 219 (Bom.) 8. CIT v. Shahajada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 311 (AP) 9. S. Dabir Singh, Jalandhar v. DIT [IT Appeal No. 27 (Asr.) of 2015] 8 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR had relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the record. Admittedly, the assessee paid the consideration through cheques and also obtained the possess…

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

…T [2014] 46 taxmann.com 300 (SC) (para 9), Smt. Shashi Verma v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106 (Cal.) (para 10), CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari [2000] 244 15 ACIT v. Prem Sapra A.Y. 2021-22 ITR 352/[2001] 117 Taxman 538 (Cal.) (para 10), CIT v. Shahafda Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 311 (AP) (para 11) and CIT v. J.H. Gotla156 ITR 323/23 Taxman 14J (para 11)". Ground No. 5 as raised by the Revenue does not arise from the orders of the authorities below and therefore deserves to be dismissed in limini. At any rate, it is not in dispute, that the full taxes as due on the income of the Seller stands paid and his ITR a…

Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

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

ITA 621/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Vs. Acit, 238/2, Atharva Estate, Central Circle, E-Ward, Tarabai Park – 416 003 Kolhapur Kolhapur, Maharashtra Pan : Agupp5765D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…y is purchased for the purpose of section 54 and the date when the possession and control of the property is given to the purchaser’s hands. Reliance can be made to the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shahzada begum (1988) 173 ITR 397 and also the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda (deceased) 211 ITR 804 wherein the Hon’ble High Court after referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. T.N.Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46 and the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs…

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

…d – 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 Vs. Smt. G. Venkata Laxmi – 373 ITR 572 (A.P and Telangana High Court.) xi. CIT Vs. A Suresh Rao – 417/2013 of Karnataka High Court. xii. CIT. Vs. Shakuntala Devi – 389 ITR 366 (Karnataka High Court) 9. ld. AR for the assessee mainly relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs.…

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

…operative housing society for purchase of residential flats and paid almost entire consideration within two years of conveyance of her residential property. I find that the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Mrs. Shahzada Begum (1988) 173 ITR 397 (AP) has also held that when the assessee who has sold the residential house property has agreed, to buy another property for self- occupation and secures possession of the property within one year from the date of sale of other property, he is entitled for exemption from capital gains under s.54(1) notwithstanding registration of sale deed beyon…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Shri Radheshyam Agrawal, Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 32/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.32/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. Radheshyam Agrawal 27/B, Ankit Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aczpa6544J ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(47)(v)Section 49Section 53ASection 54F

…not necessary that the assessee should have become the owner of the property. Section 54F spoke of purchase and registration was not imperative.” On a similar footing the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. Mrs. Shahzada Begum (1988) 173 ITR 397, had held that where the assessee who had sold a residential house property has agreed to buy another property for self-occupation and secures possession of the property within one year from the date of sale of other property, he was entitled for exemption from capital gains u/s. 54(1) of the Act notwithstanding registration of the sale deed beyo…

Bharat Shah, Indore vs. The ITO3(4), Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

ITA 181/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

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

…oes not mean that the new house must be registered in assessee's name, as held in Balraj v. CIT (2002) 123 taxmann 290 •Date of taking possession is relevant for the purpose of Section 54F, and not date of registration, as held in CIT v. Shahzada Begum (1988) 173 ITR 397 and CIT v. R.L. Sood (2000) 245 ITR 727 •Exemption under Section 54F is allowable even if no registration deed has been made in favour of the assessee, as held in CIT v. Mrs. Rekha Mathur (2005) 98 TTl 900 (Delhi-Trib) 2. Holding of legal title is not necessary for exemption from capital gains 'Purchase' for the purpose of exemption from capital…

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)

…the flat but even almost the entire cost of 10 construction is paid by the assessee within a period of two years. Our attention in this connection was also drawn to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397. In the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the assessee had paid a substantial purchase instalment and secured possession of the property within one year of the sale of her residential property, but the sale deed in respect of the property so purchased by her was executed and registered after the expiry of one year. The Andhra Pradesh Hig…

Ramita Mahendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4535/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Purushotam Kumar
Section 54

…1961. Till such time, he had only the right to purchase house property, he added. He relied on the following decisions:-  (1) CWT v. K.B. Pradhan [1981] 130 ITR 393 (Ori.) (2) K.P, Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) (3) CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 31 (AP) (4) Purushottam Govind Bhat v. First ITO [1985] 13 ITD 939 (Bom.) (5) Damodar Raheja v. Eighth ITO [1984] 10 ITD 75 (Mad.). And finally Tribunal decided the issue that in case the assessee is allowed possession of the property, only from that date the ownership is to be considered for the purpose of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act.…

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

…s a residence, the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court also considered CBDT Circular No.471 dated 15/10/1986. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Court duly considered the decision in CI T vs Mrs. Sehjada Begum 173 ITR 397 (AP), CIT vs Subramaniya Bhatt 165 ITR 571 (Karn.), Shanta Ben P. Gandhi vs CIT129 ITR 218 (Guj.). In the light of the foregoing discussion, facts on record, and the judicial pronouncements, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), therefore, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 3. The next groun…

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

…s a residence, the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court also considered CBDT Circular No.471 dated 15/10/1986. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Court duly considered the decision in CI T vs Mrs. Sehjada Begum 173 ITR 397 (AP), CIT vs Subramaniya Bhatt 165 ITR 571 (Karn.), Shanta Ben P. Gandhi vs CIT129 ITR 218 (Guj.). In the light of the foregoing discussion, facts on record, and the judicial pronouncements, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), therefore, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 3. The next groun…

ITO 20(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Chandrakant Himatlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6725/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 54

…me Court in the case of CIT v. TM. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46 though in the context of different factual background observed that the word 'purchase' in section 54 has to be construed in a wider sense. 5. In the case of CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, rejecting the submission that crucial date for the purpose of determining when the property is purchased within the meaning of section 54 is the date of registration of the sale deed in favour of the assessee when the title passes, came to the conclusion that the expression 'purchase' would connote the domain and c…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5749/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

Section 4(1)

…Act, 1961. Till such time, he had only the right to purchase house property, he added. He relied on the following decisions: (1) CWT v. K.B. Pradhan (1981) 130 ITR 393(Ori.) (2) K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC) (3) CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum (1988)173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 31 (AP) 16 Vembu Vaidyanathan (4) Purushottam Govind Bhat v. First ITO (1985) 13 ITD 939(Bom.) (5) Damodar Raheja v. Eighth ITO (1984) 10 ITD 75(Mad.). 6. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the rival contentions. The question before us, though it is simple, raises problems of importance in metropolitan cities wher…

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Uday Kashinath Sathe, Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2343/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Uday Kashinath Sathe, Ward-3(4), 403,404, Happy Valley Phase बनाम/ Room No.9, B-Wing, Vi, Manpada, Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Nr. Tikujiniwadi, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Adups7623L

Section 2Section 2(47)Section 54E

…Act, 1961. Till such time, he had only the right to purchase house property, he added. He relied on the following decisions: (1) CWT v. K.B. Pradhan (1981) 130 ITR 393(Ori.) (2) K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC) (3) CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum (1988)173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 31 (AP) (4) Purushottam Govind Bhat v. First ITO (1985) 13 ITD 939(Bom.) (5) Damodar Raheja v. Eighth ITO (1984) 10 ITD 75(Mad.). 6. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the rival contentions. The question before us, though it is simple, raises problems of importance in metropolitan cities where there exists lot 16…

The Commissioner of Income Tax II

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/117/2014HC Delhi12 Aug 2014
Section 54

…ITA 117/2014 Page 12 of 14 been taken in Bharati C. Kothari (supra) wherein reference was made to the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Shahzada Begum (Mrs.) [1988] 173 ITR 397 and it was observed that assessee had entered into an agreement within two years for purchase of a flat which was under construction. Payment for the said flat was made within three years from the date of sale of the first property. No doubt the assessee was not constructing the new asset herself but she had purchased the flat. Reference…