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.

66

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 54FSection 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 136
Read the full judgment

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

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Uma Developers, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 7718/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainincome Tax Officer-3(4) M/S. Uma Developers 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Shop No. 2, Mayur Chs Ltd. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. M.G. Road, Naupada Estate, Thane (W) 400601 Thane (W) - 400602 Pan - Aabfu8250F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.K. DhondialFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80I

…ble Apex Court in the case of Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. V/s CIT [1970] 77 ITR 518. Ld CIT(A) has stated that similar issue in the context of section 54F also came before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT V/s Jagruti Agarwal (339 ITR 610) (P&H) and it was held that subsection (4) of section 139 has to be read along with sub-section (1) of section 139 and therefore due date for ,furnishing the return of income according to section 139 was subject to extended period provided u/s. 139(4) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) stated that similar issue was also considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdiction…

Suman Kadam, Thane vs. ITO WD 2(4), Thane

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2777/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2777/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Suman Kadam Ito, Ward 2(4), बनाम/ Vardaan, 6Th Floor, S/1, Narmada Apartment, Cabin Cross Road, Bhayandar (E), Ashar I. T. Park, Road No. 16-Z, Vs. Thane-401 105 Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afipk 3600 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3256/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Ito, Ward 2(2), Suman Kadam Thane-400 604 Thane-401 105 Vs. (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Vijay Shah Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Debabrata Baidya सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 12.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 08.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 27.2.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 31.12.2010. 2

For Respondent: Shri Debabrata Baidya
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ई” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2777/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Suman Kadam ITO, Ward 2(4), बनाम/ Vardaan, 6th Floor, S/1, Narmada Apartment, Cabin Cross Road, Bhayandar (E), Ashar I. T. Park, Road No. 16-Z, Vs. Thane-401 105 Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AFIPK 3600 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3256/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ ITO, Ward 2(2), Suman Kadam Thane-…

Sh. Umrao Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

ITA 2442/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.R. Sonbhadra, Senior DR
Section 147Section 148

…ex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs CIT (284 ITR 323) (SC)." 3. "That Ld. CIT(A) has allowed deduction of Rs.48,78,450/- u/s 54B of the Act on the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 15 Taxmann 146), 339 ITR 610. The facts in the present case are quite dissimilar to the facts of the case relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) as in the case of Jagriti Aggarwal the return was filed by the assessee but in the present case the assessee never filed his return of income." 4. "That Ld. CIT(A) has allowed deduction u/s 54B of the Act on the investment made in purchase…

M/S. Fiberfill Engineers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1853/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri A.T. Varkey:Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 M/S Fiberfill Engineers Vs. Acit Circle 38(1), C-9/9574, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi-110070. (New Circle 63(1),Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaff 6313 P ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gautam Jain Adv. P. Kamal Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Rehka Vimal Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2016. Date Of Order : 25/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rehka Vimal DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 22(1)Section 22(3)Section 54Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…n extension of section 139(1) and, therefore, compliance with the provision of sub-section (4) should be deemed to be due compliance of provision of sub-section (1). For this proposition, assessee relied on following decisions: a. CIT vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610, wherein it was, inter alia, held that the provision of sub-section (4) to section 139 was not an independent provision, but relates to the time contemplated under sub-sec. (1) of section 139. b. CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274, wherein it was, inter alia, held that the assessee could fulfill the requirement u/s 54 of the I.T. Act for exem…

T. Shivakumar, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 323/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, Addl.CIT
Section 54

…l gain is not appropriated for such construction has to be done before the 10 ITA No.323(B)/15 due date for furnishing the return of income u/s (1) of sec.139 of the IT Act, 1961. Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ms Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 has held that sub-sec.(4) of sec.139 can only be construed to as a proviso to sub-sec.(1) and thus, the due date furnishing the return mentioned in sec.139(1) is subject to the extended period provided under section 139(4) of the IT Act, 1961. The impugned assessment year before us is assessment year : 2009-10, and the extended time period u/…

Sunil Vishnu Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2498/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. R. Prasad Rao (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikhalje (DR)
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54(2)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, “ई ” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“E”,BENCH सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं एवं संदीप गोसांई, "याियक सद"य एवं एवं Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.2498/Mum/2012 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Sh.Sunil Vishnu Mehta Income tax Officer-11(1)(4) 3, Deluxe Apartment Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg Altamount Road New Marine Lines Mumbi-400 026. Mumbai.…