How many judgments cite CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal?

66 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (339 ITR 610), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 139(1), Section 139(4), Section 143(1), Section 143(3), Section 54F, Section 10(20).

CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal

339 ITR 610High Court2011#1724 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 54F Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 136

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 54(2)section 139(4)section 80ac section 80a section 54 section 54f date of transfer section 34 section 139(1)section 139 tangible material long term capital gain

Judgments citing CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal

The ITO, Cochin vs. Late Sri.K.Sasidharan Rep by Smt. K.P.Sailaja, Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 56/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…he ground raised by the department o non- allowance of deduction claimed u/s. 54F. 7.4 The Ld. AR relied on the following case law: (a) CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (206 CTR 361)(Guwahati) (b) CIT Vs. Fatima Bai (32 DTR 243)(Kar) (c) CIT Vs. Jagriti Agarwal (339 ITR 610)(P & H) (d) Nipun Mehrotra Vs. ACIT (110 ITD 523)(Bang.) (e) Muthuletchumi Janardanan Vs. DCIT (34 CCH 193)(Coch) (f) ACIT vs. Smt. Umayal Annamalai (ITA No. 415/Mds/2015 (dt. 22/04/2016) (g)) Pr. CIT vs. Shankar Lal Sahni (253 taxman 308)(Raj.) 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee sold the cap…

Shri Suresh Chandra, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 357/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 357/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Suresh Chandra, Vs Income Tax Officer, Iii-C/8, Nehru Nagar, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abwpc4464B Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.11.2014 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 54Section 54F

…g the capital gain, if the assessee satisfied the conditions imposed in Sub-Section (1) of Section 54/54F of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau) " CIT Vs Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H) " CIT Vs K. Ramachandra Rao (2015) 277 CTR 522 (Kar.) 7 Suresh Chandra " ITO Vs Smt. Sapna Dimri in ITA No. 4958/Del/2011 order dated 20.01.2012 " ACIT Vs Smt. Umayal Annamali in ITA No. 415/Mds./2015 order dated 22.04.2016 " Sh. Ajeet Kumar Jaiswal Vs ITO in ITA No. 1707/Hyd./2016 order dated 31.08.2017 " Sunayana Devi Vs ITO, Ward-2(4),…

J.Devarajan, Chennai vs. DCIT Business Circle III, Chennai

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

ITA 2975/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George

Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

…the Act to the assessee and accordingly delete the addition made by him which was further sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. That part, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagriti Agrawal reported in 339 ITR 610 and the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan reported in 286 ITR 274 have taken a view that considering the intention of enacting an alleviating provision like Sec.54 of the Act, a liberal interpretation, accentuating the purpose of such enactment has to be preferred over a strict interpretation. In the given c…

ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5644/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito-(It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Mrs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, C/O 17Th Floor, Room No. 1727, C C Dayal & Co. Cas. Jeevan Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Udyog, 278, D.D. Road, Fort, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Acapg8593Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Cit (Dr) Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, Ar Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018. Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit(A)’]And Arises Out Of The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Grounds Of Appeals Read As Under: 1. Whether On Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Deduction Under Section 54 For Investment Of Capital Gain In Purchase Of New Residential House In Australia & Thus Allowing The Shifting

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…erchant v. CCIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 2 (Bom). 4.1 On the other hand, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in CIT v. K. Ramachandra Rao (2015) 277 CTR 522 (Karn), Fathima Bai v. ITO (2009) 32 DTR (Karn) 243, CIT v. Ms. Jariti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H), CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati) etc. Further, the Ld. counsel submits that the decision in Humayun Suleman Merchant (supra) supports the case of the assessee. In the above case the assessee sold a plot of land on 29.04.1985 for a consideration of Rs.85.33 lakhs. Thereafter, on 16.07.1996, the assessee entered into an…

ITO Ward - 1(3), Thane vs. Kalpana Pradeep Ambre, Thane

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5156/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Smt. Kalpana Pradeep Ward-1(3), Ambre, बनाम/ Room No.10, 6Th Floor, 1801, Pristine Vasant Lawns, Vs. Ashar It Park, B-Wing, Pokhran Road No.2, Wagle Indl. Estate, Majiwada, Thane(W)-400604 Thane(W) (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aafpc0868D

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 45Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…issioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the factual matrix was considered and considering the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kishore H. Galaiya and further the decision from Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Jagrati Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 along with other cases and held that the assessee invested the amount of Rs.52,38,125/- for purchasing the new asset, therefore, to this extent, extended the benefit to the assessee and restricted the disallowance to Rs.4,55,204/-. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. With this factual matrix, now we shall analyze the…

Asst CIT 34(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vasavada, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6741/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Shri Manish Vasavada Income Tax-34(2), Room Vs. 1604, Premium Tower, No. 205, 2Nd Floor, C-12, Lokhandwala Complex, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai- Andheri (W), 400050. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacpv9012F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. B.V. Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)

…y invested in new property. For the purpose of section 54(2), the requirement is that the assessee should have invested in CGAS within the due date u/s 139(1). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the AR of the assessee relied on the decision in CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 (P&H); Anilkumar Omkar Singh v. ITO in ITA No. 4648/Mum/2013 (Mumbai Tribunal); Sh. Sunil Vishnu Mehta v. ITO in ITA No. 2948/Mum/2012 (Mumbai Tribunal); Shri Manish Vasavada 4 Fatimabai v. ITO 2008 (10) TMI 563 (Karnataka HC); Y. Malarvizhi v. ITO 1958/Mds/ 2013 dt. 10.11.2014 (Chennai Tribunal). Reference was also made to Circular No. 495 date…

K.K.Srinivasan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 148Section 54F

…TTJ 634 Chd, 125 DTR 314 Chd. Assessee had specifically relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 282 and that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ms. Nagriti Agarwal, 339 ITR 610. Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the latter case had clearly held that Sub Section (4) to Sec. ITA No.1263 /Mds/2017 :- 6 -: 139 of the Act was in fact a proviso to sub section (1) to Section 139 of the Act. What was held by their lordships at para 9 to 11 of its judgment are reproduced hereunder:- ‘’9. On the other hand, learned c…

ITO 25(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Vinayak A Rakvi (HUF), Mumbai

ITA 3561/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3561/M/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito 25(1)(4) बिधम/ Vinayak A Rakvi (Huf) C-12. 7Th Floor, R.No. 203, Leela Park, Yari Rd, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai –Pin:400061 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aachv1157P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas V. MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 54

…he issue of whether the time available to an assessee for deposit of the capital gains in the notified scheme is till the due date as per section 139(1) or 139(4), the Hon’ble R&H High Court, in the decision rendered in the case of CIT V. Smt. Jagriti Agarwal 339 ITR 610, held that the due date for filing of return must be read taking cognizance of the time provided by section 139(4) and the claim of exemption u/s 54 could not be disallowed on the basis that the deposit had not been made within the time allowed u/s. 139(1). The relevant part of the decision is as under: 2. The revenue has claimed the following su…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Harish Chander Khullar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3758/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Harish Chander Khullar, Ward 27(2), Vs. E-88-B, Mansarover Garden, Room No. 1909, New Delhi – 110 015 E-2 Block, Civic Centre, (Pan: Aafpk8788A) Minto Road, New Delhi – 110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 54B

…year from the sale of the capital asset i.e. agricultural land. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the exemption uls 54B of the I.T. Act has to be allowed on the amount of Rs. 69,80,300/-. In a similar case namely CIT vs. Jagriti Aggarwal, 15 Taxmann.com 146(2011), the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held "Sub-section (4) of section 139 is, in fact, a proviso to sub-section (1) of section 139. Section 139 fixes the different dates for filing the returns for different assessees. In the case of assessee, it is 31st day of July of the assessment year in terms of clause (e) of the Exp…

Smt. Chhayaben Mahendrabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 360/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Time Limit For Filing Of Income Tax Return Under Section 139(1) Expired. This Objection Is Not Valid For Two Reasons – First, Because, As Held By

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54F

…e new residential property within prescribed time limit, this requirement of keeping the money in specified account does not come into play; and – second, because, as held by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Jagriti Aggarwal [(2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H)], time limit referred to section 54F covers time limit under section 139 (4) as well. I have noted that the authorities below have relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of ITO vs. Rosamma Korah [(2015) 171 TTJ 692 (Cochin)] but the Tribunal did not have benefit of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s views in the case of K. Ramachandra Ro…

ACIT, Cir-I, Siliguri vs. Mrs Harmeet Kaur, Siliguri

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

ITA 1482/KOL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1482/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, -Vs- Mrs. Harmeet Kaur Siliguri (Pan : Afupk 9262 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

…the Act and hence the assessee should not be denied the benefit of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The assessee placed reliance in this regard on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Jagriti Agarwal reported in (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H) wherein it was held that : The sale of the asset having been taken place on 13.1.2006, falling in the previous year 2006-07, the return could be filed before the end of the relevant assessment year 2007-08, i.e 31.3.2007 . Thus, section 139(4) of the Act provides the extended period of limitation as an exception to section 139(1) of the Act…

A.Rajalakshmi, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 514/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 514/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. A. Rajalakshmi, The Income Tax Officer, New No.12, Old No.3, 3Rd Street, V. Corporate Ward 5(4) Zakaria Colony, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 094. [Pan Agbpr 6558F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 54

…deposited in a bank under capital gains scheme as notified by the Central Government within a time limit available to file return of income u/s. 139(4) of the Act has held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610. If the assessee completes the construction of a new residential house within three years from the date of sale of capital asset, assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. Now the contention of the ld. Departmental Representative is that assessee has not appropriated towards construction of new residential house as it was not comple…

Inder Sen Setia, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6598/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2012-13 Inder Sen Setia, Vs. Ito, D-13, M.K. Residency, Ward 64(3), Plot No.8-B, Sector-11, New Delhi. Dwarka, New Delhi. Pan: Ahmps1140C

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Nanda, CA

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54F

…n'ble Guwahati High Court in CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Guwahati) has held so in the context of section 54, whose language is same. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Jagruti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H). The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT and Anr vs. Smt. Vrinda P. Issac (2011) 64 DTR 376 (Kar) has held that if the amount is paid before the time allowed u/s 139(4), there can be no denial of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. It is relevant to note that the judgment in the case of Vrinda P. Issac (supra) has been rendered in the context o…

Arvind B. Sardhara, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1358/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54(2)

…assessee. I find that it is settled law that in the judiciary hierarchy decision of the Hon’ble High Court take precedence over that of the Tribunal. In this regard I note that Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Jagriti Aggarwal [(2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H)] has held that time limit for investment obtain the benefit under section 54 should be that of section 139(4). 3 ITA No.1358/Mum/2017. Shri Arvind B.Sardhara 5. Accordingly, respectfully following the Hon’ble High Court decision as above, I set aside the order of learned CIT(A). I hold that the assessee having made the deposits upto the pe…

Shri Uday Sood, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4834/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Shri Uday Sood Vs. The I.T.O 1005, Sector – 15 Ward – 8(2) Faridabad, Haryana New Delhi Pan : Adzps 5454 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr- DR

Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…on sale of residential property in notified scheme upto the expiry of time limit for filing return u/s 139(4) of the Act. 6 9. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] reported in 339 ITR 610, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that the said sub section (4) of section 139 of the Act is in fact a proviso to sub- section (1) of section 139 and provides extension of period of due date for filing of return in certain circumstances and, therefore, exemption u/s 54 of the Act was allowable where the asses…

Ravi Kant HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4174/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

Section 139(1)Section 260ASection 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant HUF, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AABHR0354M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Sanjay Kapadia Shri Purushottam Kumar-DR राज"…

D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata vs. M/S Kilburn Engineering Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1987/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Biswas, CITFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Singhi, AR

Section 45Section 54GSection 54G(2)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘A’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM ] Assessment Year : 2009-10 D.C.I.T. Circle-6, -versus- M/s. Kilburn Engineering Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AABCK 3421 H) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT For the Respondent: Shri Sunil Singhi, AR Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2017. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 01.03.2013 of CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2009-10. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue read as foll…

Gopal Saran Darbari, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1249/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Saurabh Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1248 & 1249/Del/2013 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 GOPAL SARAN DARBARI, Vs. ITO, WARD 11(1), 187, NEELGIRI APARTMENTS, NEW DELHI ALAKNANDA, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAFPD152OP) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Saurabh Goel, CAs Revenue by : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. The Assessee has filed these two Appeals against the separate Orders dated 22.1.2013 and 10.1.2013 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi pertai…

Gopal Saran Darbari, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1248/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Saurabh Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54

Farhan Makki Pettiwala, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 6204/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Farhan Makki Pettiwala Assistant Commissioner B-102, Bianca, Panch Marg Of Income Tax - 24(1) 402, Yari Road, Next To Ashoka Vs. Mumbai Towers, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400061 Pan - Aacpp2204P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru

Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…has been decided in favour of the assessee. In this regard the learned A.R. submitted that the 4 Shri Farhan Makki Pettiwala assessee’s case was squarely covered, inter alia, by the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) CIT vs. M/s. Jagriti Agarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H) (ii) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 296 ITR 374 (Gau) (iii) Anil Kumar Omkar Singh Aurora (ITA No. 4648/Mum/2013 dated 06.11.2013 (iv) Fatima Bai vs. ITO (2009) 32 DTR 243 (Kar HC) 4.2.2 It is prayed by the learned A.R. that since the assessee’s case is squarely covered by the aforecited judicial pronouncements, the authorities below be…