CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal

339 ITR 610High Court2011#1744 most cited

What is CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal authority for?

A return of income filed within the period allowed under Section 139(4) is valid for claiming exemptions and deductions, including those under Sections 54, 54F, and 80AC. However, depositing the unutilized capital gains in the Capital Gains Account Scheme is a statutory and mandatory requirement for claiming exemption under Section 54F.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal · Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal · Section 54F · Section 54 · Section 139(1) · Section 139(4) · Section 80AC · Capital Gains Account Scheme · CGAS deposit · mandatory compliance · belated return · claiming exemption · long term capital gain

Also reported as

15 Taxmann.com 146203 Taxmann 203

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 136

Issues it is cited on

section 54(2)section 139(4)section 80acsection 80asection 54section 54fdate of transfersection 34section 139(1)section 139tangible materiallong term capital gain

Judgments citing CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6732/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRIBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, PAN No.AAALN0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT,Circle-2, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar B…

NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6541/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRIBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, PAN No.AAALN0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT,Circle-2, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar B…

NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6540/DEL/2018[20101-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRIBRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, PAN No.AAALN0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY, बनाम DCIT,Circle-2, Phase-II, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar B…

AVANASIYAPPAN ESWARAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO,WARD 1(2), TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1666/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

…in CIT v. Hemsons Industries [(2001) 251 ITR 693 (SC)] has held that procedural requirements cannot be ignored even if the ultimate objective is achieved. 6.3.4. Judicial Precedents Supporting Mandatory CGAS Compliance:  CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal [(2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H HC)]: The court emphasized that deposit in CGAS is a statutory requirement for claiming exemption under Section 54F. • Bharati C. Kothari v. ITO [(2016) 69 taxmann.com 69 (Mumbai Trib.)]: It was held that failure to deposit unutilized capital gains in :- 5 -: CGAS disentitles the assessee from exemption, regardless of actual construction. •…

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…show-cause that why Rs. 1, 19, 45,236/- should not be taxed under the head "Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)". 4. during the course of hearing, assessee relied upon the judgment in the case of CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 15 taxmann.com 146/203 Taxman 203/339 ITR 610 (Punj. & Har.) and CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 157 Taxman 398/286 ITR 274 (Gau.) to substantiate its claim under section 54 of the Act. Whereas AO relied upon the literal interpretation of section 54 of the Act which speaks about section 139(1) only. AO was not convinced with the argument advanced by the assessee in her favour and disallowed…

SHRI BHIMGRAD SEVA SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,BHINGRAD, TAL. LATHI, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC),, BANGALORE-560500

Appeals are allowed

ITA 11/RJT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 312 /Rjt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Dhamel Seva Sahkari Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Mandali Ltd. Income Tax (Cpc) Amreli, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic Gujarat – 365220 City Post Office, Bangalore - 560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkas8446E (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

…o stated that the Return of income filed within the time allowed u/s ITA No. 312 & 313 & 11/Rjt/2022 AY 2019-20 139(4) of the Act, cannot be said to be hit by section 80AC of the Act, for that ld. Counsel relied on following case law. (i).Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 (Punjab & Haryana) (ii). Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati HC) (iii).Fathima Bai vs ITO 32 DTR 243 (Karnataka HC)] The ld Counsel also stated that if the issue is a debatable one, then in that circumstances the provisions of section 143(l)(a) of the Act, is not meant to be invoked. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has prima…

SHREE DAMNAGAR SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED ,AT DAMNAGAR, DIST. AMRELI vs. THE ADIT (CPC), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Appeals are allowed

ITA 313/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 312 /Rjt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Dhamel Seva Sahkari Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Mandali Ltd. Income Tax (Cpc) Amreli, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic Gujarat – 365220 City Post Office, Bangalore - 560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkas8446E (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

…o stated that the Return of income filed within the time allowed u/s ITA No. 312 & 313 & 11/Rjt/2022 AY 2019-20 139(4) of the Act, cannot be said to be hit by section 80AC of the Act, for that ld. Counsel relied on following case law. (i).Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 (Punjab & Haryana) (ii). Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati HC) (iii).Fathima Bai vs ITO 32 DTR 243 (Karnataka HC)] The ld Counsel also stated that if the issue is a debatable one, then in that circumstances the provisions of section 143(l)(a) of the Act, is not meant to be invoked. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has prima…

SHREE DHAMEL SEVA SAHKARI MANDLI LIMITED,DHAMEL vs. THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC),, BANGALURU

Appeals are allowed

ITA 312/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 312 /Rjt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Shree Dhamel Seva Sahkari Vs. The Asstt. Director Of Mandali Ltd. Income Tax (Cpc) Amreli, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic Gujarat – 365220 City Post Office, Bangalore - 560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abkas8446E (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

…o stated that the Return of income filed within the time allowed u/s ITA No. 312 & 313 & 11/Rjt/2022 AY 2019-20 139(4) of the Act, cannot be said to be hit by section 80AC of the Act, for that ld. Counsel relied on following case law. (i).Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 (Punjab & Haryana) (ii). Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati HC) (iii).Fathima Bai vs ITO 32 DTR 243 (Karnataka HC)] The ld Counsel also stated that if the issue is a debatable one, then in that circumstances the provisions of section 143(l)(a) of the Act, is not meant to be invoked. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has prima…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SH. NAVAL KISHORE, KOTA

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 456/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…A and ITR filed u/s 139 of the Act. The addition so made by the ld. AO, is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same kindly be deleted in full." #### 3. Supporting Case laws: - 3.1 CIT vs Ms Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (Punjab & Haryana) wherein inter alia, it was held that the provisions of sub section (4) to section 139 was not an independent provision, but relates to the time contemplated under section 139(1) of the Act. - 3.2 CIT vs Kulu Valley Transport Company ltd (1970) 77 ITR 518(SC), wherein it was held a return filed under section 139(4) is a valid re…

RAMKUNWAR PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4), BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 208/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…he date for furnishing return u/s 139(4). Therefore, the new investment was very much eligible for exemption u/s 54F. To support this proposition, Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Harayana High Court in CIT Vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H), the relevant paragraphs are re-produced below: Page 5 of 11 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. ITO, 2(4), Bhopal ITA No. 208/Ind/2022 – AY 2009-10 “The assessee sold her house property for Rs. 45 lacs and claimed deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The assessee was served with a notice under S…

JERAMBHAI BHAGVANBHAI GOHIL,VARACHHA, SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 54B

…ections of section 139. No such condition is prescribed in section 54B and claim cannot be disallowed on this ground. To support his submission, the assessee relied on the decision various High Courts 8 Jerambhai B Gohil including in CIT Vs Jagruti Aggarwal (339 ITR 610 P & H), CIT Vs Jagtar Singh Chawla (259 ITR 388 P& H), CIT Vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan ( 286 ITR 274 Gau) and Fatimabai Vs ITO ( 32 DTR 243 Kol). On the objection of assessing officer that there was reference in the purchase deed about ‘bin Kheti premium patra land’, the assessee explained that land is agriculture land and can be used as ‘NA’ (non-agri…

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, Accountant Member Dhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. CIT, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAEFD7291A Assessee by : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CA Revenue by: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date of pronouncement 24/04/2023 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. This appeal in ITA No.1030/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 arises out of the order by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad in appeal No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5…

MUNISH BABAJI SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2022[MUNISH BABJI SAWANT]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022
For Appellant: Shri. Anil SatheFor Respondent: M/s. Neeta Jeph
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 744/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ITO 15(3) (2) Mumbai Munish Babaji Sawant Matru mandir, Income Tax 102, Gomati CHS, Sant बिधम/ Office, Tardeo Raod, Grant Dnyaneshwar Road, Vs. Road (W), Mumbai 400007 Borivali(E), Mumbai 400066 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AVTPS0273R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri. Anil Sathe प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : M/s. Neeta Jeph सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30.08.2022 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.11.20…

DHARMISTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…these observations, AO issued a show-cause that why Rs. 1, 19, 45,236/- should not be taxed under the head “Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)”. 4. During the course of hearing, assessee relied upon the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Miss. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H) and CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau.) to substantiate its claim under section 54 of the Act. Whereas AO relied upon the literal interpretation of section 54 of the Act which speaks about section 139(1) only. AO was not convinced with the argument advanced by the assessee in her favour and disallowed the claim of the asses…

M/S CHANDRAKANT H. KAKKAD,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, this ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/RJT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 54Section 54F

…f Jagtar Singh Chawla 259 CTR 388 (P & H). The assessee has placed reliance of decision of ITAT Mumbai in case of ITO Vs. Deenaz Hoshang Jhabvala ITA No.5062(Mum) of 2012 (order date 15/01/2014) wherein reliance has been placed on decisions of Jagruti Agarwal 339 ITR 610(P & H), Rajeshkumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati) and fatimabai (2010) 32(I)ITCL 97 (Karnataka-HC) Wherein it was held inter-alia that the assessee can fulfill the requirement of Section 54 of Act up to the extended time limit for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act. In this regard I find that the Mumbai High Court, recently in c…

MIRZA ARIF BEG,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 1, GORAKHPUR

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

ITA 100/VNS/2019[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 May 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh.Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Mirza Arif Beg, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, H. No. 184-B, New Colony, New Range-1, Gorakhpur Beniganj Chowk, Jafra Bazar, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Abxpb6421C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Chand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…d AR has submitted that the investment was made within the time period prescribed under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. He has further contended that the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 has held that if the investment is made before the due date of the filing of the return under section 139 which includes the due date under section 139(4), then the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The learned AR has further contended that the assessee invested the money in construction of the residentia…

CHANDER KANTA MAHESHWARI L/H OF LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assesseeis allowed

ITA 448/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54(1)

…urchased or construction of new asset within the time prescribed under Section 54F(4) of the Act, till the filing of the Income Tax Return under Section 139(4) of the Act’. 8.1 Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. JagritiAggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H) dealt with an identical issue and while relying upon Hon’ble Gauhati High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 held and justified the utilization of the capital gain for purchase of property before the extended due date under Section 139(4) of the Act. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court again in the…

SHRI BHADRESH SURYAKANT PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2012-13 Shri Bhadresh Suryakant Patel, Income Tax Officer, A-73, Mathura Nagari, Vs Ward-1(2)(3), Behind Nand Society, Vadodara Old Padra Road, Vadodara Pan : Aklpp 1848 G अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/12/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals-5), Vadodara [“Cit(A) In Short] Dated 25.02.2019 Passed For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.11,41,430/- Claimed Under Section 54B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr DR
Section 54B

…ved against sale is invested for Purchase of Land. Appellant has relied on following rulings:- (i) Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi v. ITO [1992] 41 ITD 368 (Pune-Trib.) (ii) Parveen P. Bharucha v/s CIT212 Taxman 166(Bom.) (iii) CIT v/s Ms Jagriti Aggarwal reported in 339 ITR 610 (P&H) (iv) CIT Rohtak v/s Shri Jagtar Singh Chawla reported in LD/61/82 Held, Where assessee has proved payment of substantial amount of sale consideration for purchase of a residential property within extended period of limitation of filing of return and acquired a residential house before end of next Financial Year in which sale has taken plac…

JAGDISH RAJESH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-20(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3258/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Nithya Sankaran, CA
Section 139(4)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी ,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" . BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:3258/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Jagdish Rajesh, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.144, Flat No.S-1, Non Corporate Ward - 20(3), v. Kamarajar Street, Chennai – 34. Chendurpuram, Kattupakkam, Chennai – 600 056. PAN: ADYPR 2029M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. Nithya Sank…

SHOBHA SHARMA,SIRSA vs. ITO-WARD-3, SIRSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 54F

…9 of SMC “A” Bench of Bangalore. • Bhagwan Swroop Pathak Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon in ITA No. 2754/Del/2019 vide order dt. 05/03/2020 of I(2) + SMC Bench New Delhi. • CIT Vs. Jagtar Singh Chawla [2013] 259 CTR 388 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 339 ITR 610 (P&H) 8. In his rival submissions the Ld. Sr. DR reiterated the observations made by the authorities below and strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that since the assessee had deposited the amount in the capital gain account scheme after due date of filing the return under section 139(1) of the…

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4