CIT v. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi

389 ITR 366High Court2016#10866 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also reported as

75 Taxmann.com 222

Sections most often in play

Section 54 Section 54F Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 263 Section 45 Section 139(1)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 54(2)section 54f section 54 date of transfer long term capital gain transfer prescribed previous year section 148 india section 147 total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

…ase of residential house or within a period of three years after that in the construction of the residential house. 7.2 The jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi reported in [2016] 389 ITR 366 has very thoroughly analyzed the provision of section 54 of the Act and held that utilization of capital gains in purchase/construction of residential house would suffice to claim the benefit of section 54 of the Act. The relevant paragraph are reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience :- “11. A reading of the above Section would make…

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Varadarajan D.P., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 45Section 54

RAJNI KUMAR WIFE OF SHRI BRIG. NARENDER KUMAR H.NO.394, SECTOR-21, GURGAONN,GURGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), GURGAON, 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…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dhananjay 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 Date of conclusion of Hearing : 25.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is f…

CHAITALI SURIL UDESHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground no. 3 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 182/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Chaitali Suril Udeshi, I.T.O., A-902, Samanvay Residency, Opp: Safal Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. Parisar-2, South Bopal Daskroi, Surat. Ahmedabad, Gujarat (India). Pan No. Ahgpd 9813 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Virtual hearing) Chaitali Suril Udeshi, I.T.O., A-902, Samanvay Residency, Opp: Safal Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. Parisar-2, South Bopal Daskroi, Surat. Ahmedabad, Gujarat (India). PAN No. AHGPD 9813 R Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Aseem Thakkar, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27/02/2023 Date of pronouncement 28/04/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed a…

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

…yderabad 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. A. Suresh Rao (supra) placed at page 25 of paper book. 8 Smt. Syama Reddy Malireddy 10. ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had not filed any new document before the ld.CIT(A). In fact, our attention was…

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

ITA 293/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvoicateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 54

…es. The object of enacting section 54 of the I.T.Act, i.e., to encourage investment in a residential building is completely fulfilled.” 15. It is also pretend to place reliance on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Shakuntala Devi [2016] 389 ITR 366 (Kar), which has held that the investment in property if made within the time specified, the registration of the property though entered into beyond the period of three years. the assessee would be eligible for the claim of deduction under section 54 of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, reads as follows:-…

SHRI KARAN RAJENDRAKUMAR ARYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 31/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Shri Karan Rajendrakumar Arya, The Principal Commissioner Of 802, Saffron, Panchvati, Vs. Income Tax-1, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 54

…, that is to say,— 7.2 The above provision requires that the amount of capital gain should be invested in a house either by way of purchase or construction of the house. The word purchase has been interpreted in the case of CIT v. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi [2016] 389 ITR 366/ 75 taxmann.com 222 by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court by observing that the date of agreement to purchase should be taken as the date of purchase of the new property. As such if assessee has entered into the agreement to purchase and invested the capital gain, it is immaterial that part of the consideration is yet to be paid or registration has…

ITO WD 25(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. UTTAMCHAND B JAIN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 54

…on 17/11/2011 the assessee has paid 85% of total cost of new property/flat. 4 Shri Uttamchand B.Jain. 5. In support of the submission the AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi (389 ITR 366), decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bhavna Cuccria vs. ITO (165 ITD 124)(Chd.-Trib.) ACIT vs. M. Raghuraman (169 ITD 315)(Chennai-Trib.) Mrs. Seema Sabharwal vs. ITO (169 ITO 319) (Chd.-Trib.), Gautam Jhunjhunwala vs. ITO (ITA No.1356/Kol/2017 dated 7th Sept. 2018) 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material availab…

MR.ASLAM ZACKRIA SAIT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 453/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CA and Shri. Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 54

…e construction house should be completed. It is enough for the assessee to establish that the assessee Page 11 of 16 had invested the consideration within the stipulated period and reliance was placed on the following decisions: CIT vs. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi 389 ITR 366 (Kar) Pr. CIT vs. C. Gopalaswamy, 384 ITR 307 (Kar) CIT vs. B S Shanthakumari, 126 DTR 436 (Kar) 6. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 596 in support of the proposition that the exemption under section 54 cannot be denied merely for the reason that the developer did not utilise the amount invested…