How many judgments cite CIT v. R.L. Sood?

42 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. R.L. Sood (245 ITR 727), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. R.L. Sood come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54, Section 143(3), Section 2(47), Section 144, Section 147, Section 263.

CIT v. R.L. Sood

245 ITR 727High Court2000#2856 most cited

What is CIT v. R.L. Sood authority for?

Exemption under Section 54 for capital gains on a residential property is available even if the sale deed is not registered within the stipulated time, provided a substantial amount of consideration is paid, or the delay in completion/registration is beyond the assessee's control.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. R.L. Sood · R.L. Sood · Section 54 exemption · capital gains new house · registration not mandatory Section 54 · possession delay Section 54 · builder failure Section 54 · substantial payment capital gains · date of transfer Section 54 · purposive interpretation Section 54 · Section 2(47) transfer · long term capital gain exemption

Also reported as

108 Taxmann 227

Sections most often in play

Section 54 Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 144 Section 147 Section 263 Section 53A Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

section 54(2)section 54(1)purposive interpretation section 2(47)section 54f section 54 date of transfer section 45 long term capital gain rule 46a transfer section 139

Judgments citing CIT v. R.L. Sood

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9321/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53ASection 54

…sale deed. The meaning of the word 'owner' in the context of section 22 has been held to be a person who is entitled to receive income in his own right. The Apex Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. C/T [1999] 239 ITR 775 and this Court in CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727 have held that registration of the document is not mandatory for claiming depreciation on the property. In this view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned Tribunal went wrong in holding that for the purpose of applicability of section 54, registration of document is Imperative. We, therefore, answer the question in the nega…

PRAKASH DEVIDAS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT -32(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6548/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Devidas, Asst. Commissioner Of Flat No. 201, F Wing, Income Tax-32(2), Octacrest C.H.S., Vs. Mumbai. Lokhandwala Township, Akurli Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101. Pan : Aeupd0326E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Rutuja Pawar (Virtually Appeared) A/W. Ms. Sneha More For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja PawarFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Devidas, Asst. Commissioner of Flat No. 201, F Wing, Income Tax-32(2), Octacrest C.H.S., vs. Mumbai. Lokhandwala Township, Akurli Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101. PAN : AEUPD0326E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Rutuja Pawar (virtually appeared) a/w. Ms. Sneha More For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 09-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13-02-2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV,…

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, 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

…79] 120 ITR 46/2 Tasman 541 (SC) 3. CIT. K. Jelani Basha [2002] 256 ITR 282/122 Taxman 509 (Mad) 4. CIT v. Ram Gopal (2015) 372 ITR 498/230 Taxman 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 riv…

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

…der and invested the capital gain for purchase of a residential unit, he is entitled to deduction u/s. 54 irrespective of the fact that builder has not completed the construction or has not yet handed over the flat. iii) In the case of CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727/108 Taxman 227 (Delhi) it has been held that since substantial amount of the consideration was paid within the time, the deduction u/s. 54 will be available though the possession and registration was made later. iv) In the case of Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106 (MP.) it was held that section 54 of the Act only says that within two ye…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, 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

…ale deed. The meaning of the word 'owner' in the context of section 22 has been held to be a person who is entitled to receive income in his own right. The Apex Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 7751 and this Court in CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 7272 have held that registration of the document is not mandatory for claiming depreciation on the property. In this view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned Tribunal went wrong in holding that for the purpose of applicability of section 54, registration of document is imperative. We, therefore, answer the question in the neg…

SANDEEP KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(4) DELHI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5631/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roysandeep Khanna Vs. Ito, Ward 29(4) W-122, Greater Kailash-I Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110048 New Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abfpk7682J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Mahna, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 54

…the assessee did not have any control over the situation, no failure on the part of the assessee was either found. In fact, the Coordinate Bench took reliance of a judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. RL Sood, reported in 245 ITR 727 where it has been held that the unutilized amount which was held back due to failure of the builder was beyond the control of the assessee and hence exemption was allowed on the same. P a g e | 4 Sandeep Khanna (AY: 2012-13) 8. Having regard to this particular aspect of the matter, it is found that under the present facts and circumstances of t…

RAHUL SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1661/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Circle-40 Rahul Saraf (Huf) Income Tax Office, 3, 4/1, Red Cross Place, Kolkata- Government Place (West), Vs. 700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadhr2300F Dcit, 5Th Floor, Room No.516, Rahul Saraf Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 33, Hungerford Street, Kolkata- Vs. 700017, West Bengal 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-700107 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akops6728D Assessee By : Shri Somitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabash Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Somitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 132(1)Section 14ASection 24ASection 54Section 8D

…vested an amount on 15.84 crores and therefore, the ld. AO’s contention is wrong that assessee is not entitled to deduction us/ 54 of the Act. Finally, the ld. CIT (A) after relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. R.L Sood[2000] 245 ITR 727 (Delhi), directed the ld. AO to allow the benefit of Section 54 of the Act to the assessee by allowing the appeal of the assessee. So far as the second ground is concerned, the appellate authority gave a clear-cut finding that the evidences which Revenue was claiming to have been accepted in violation of Rule 46A of the rules, while in fact avail…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. RAHUL SARAF, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL

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

ITA 1238/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Somitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

Section 132(1)Section 14ASection 24ASection 54Section 8D

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

…der and invested the capital gain for purchase of a residential unit, he is entitled to deduction u/s. 54 irrespective of the fact that builder has not completed the construction or has not yet handed over the flat. 7.4. In the case of CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727/108 Taxman 227 (Delhi) (Placed at PB Page No. 173-175) it has been held that since substantial amount of the consideration was paid within the time, the deduction u/s. 54 will be available though the possession and registration was made later. 7.5. In the case of Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106 (MP) (Placed at PB Page No. 176-177) it…

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

…Sanjeev Lal Vs. CIT – 365 ITR 389 (SC). ii. Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs. CIT – 239 ITR 775 (SC). iii. Smt. Shashi Varma Vs. CIT – 224 ITR 106 (Madhya Pradesh High Court). iv. CIT Vs. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia – 216 ITR 376 (Bombay High Court). v. CIT Vs. R.L. Sood – 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 Telanga…

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Smt. Ritu Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 21-B, Pocket-D, SFS Flats Ward 60(4), Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 096 PAN BIEPS0468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Hiren Mehta, CA Department by : Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date of pronouncement 24. 02.2023 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.10.2016 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income…

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

…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 gains is not used in the strict sense of…

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)

…count of booking of flat from M/s. Sunworld Developer Pvt. Ltd., Sunworld, Vanalika, purchased at Rs.72,15,255/-. 3.1 Though the Assessee has claimed before the Assessing Officer that as per Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. R. L. Sood 245 ITR 727 (Del.), the benefit under Section 54 (1) shall be available where substantial amount has been made for purchase of new house and as per judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Bharti C. Kothari 244 ITR 352 (Cal.) deduction under Section 54 shall be available where payment for new flat has been made within period of…

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

…vested the capital gain for purchase of a residential unit, he is entitled to deduction u/s 54 irrespective of the fact that builder has not completed the construction or has not yet handed over the flat. 7.4 Similarly, in the case of CIT v. R.L. Sood [2000] 245 ITR 727/108 Taxman 227 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed that since substantial amount of the consideration was paid within the time, the deduction u/s 54 of the Act will be available, though the possession and registration was made later. Asstt. Year 2015-16 7 7.5 In the case of Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106, the Hon’ble MP high c…

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 5548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Late Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR

Section 160Section 160(1)(i)Section 161(1)Section 163Section 2(14)Section 48Section 54F

…f flat by the builder is sufficient to entitle the assessee to claim benefit u/s 54F. Assessee had paid full amount of consideration and the builder had also offered possession, deduction u/s 54F cannot be denied to the assessee. b) In CIT vs R L Sood (2000) 245 ITR 727 (Del), it is held that on payment of substantial amount in terms of purchase agreement within 04 days of sale of his old house, assessee acquired substantial domain over new residential flat within specified period, it could be said that assessee complied with requirements of section 54. Merely because builder failed to handover possession of the…

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(4)Section 148Section 54

…ant of possession is a mere formality and that the payments made within the prescribed time limits would be sufficient to claim exemption u/s 54. Further, in the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case 6 ITA No. 2656/Del./2017 of CIT vs. R.L. Sood, 245 ITR 727, it is seen that judgment is on different facts. In that case, possession was delivered after the prescribed date of one year and the Sale Deed was registered thereafter whereas in the case of Appellant, it is seen that possession has not been handed over till date i.e. beyond the period of prescribed date and Sale Deed has also not been executed…

SRI. HAIDER NOMAN KHORAKIWALA,MYSURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), MYSURU

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

ITA 2367/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.2367/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 Sri.Haider Noman Kohrakiwala The Asst.Commissioner of No.28, 4th Main Road, Gokulam Vs. Income-tax, Circle 1(1) 2nd Stage, V.V.Mohalla Mysuru. Mysuru – 570 002. PAN : AJRPK8867B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by :Sri.V.Srinivasan, AR Respondent by :Sri.Manjeet Singh, DR Date of Date of Hearing : 07.10.2020 Pronouncement : 13.10.2020 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s o…

SHRI PARDEEP KUMAR JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 190/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, CIT DR

Section 271Section 54

…kpur 7 1. CIT(A) vs Gita Duggal (357 ITR 153) [2013] Delhi High Court] 2. CIT vs Syed Ali Adil ()352 ITR 418) (AP High Court) 3. CIT vs KG Rukminiamma (321 ITR 211) (Kar. High Court) 4. CIT vs Ananda Basappa (309 ITR 329) (Kar. High Court) 5. CIT vs RL Sood (245 ITR 727) (2000) (Del. High Court) 10. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that even in the case of ‘CIT vs Ananda Basappa’ (309 ITR 329), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court) has held that in the word Expression "a residential house", ‘a’ should not be understood to indicate a singular number. 11. We find that the issue is settled by the various decis…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5899/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54E

…the period of one year prior to the date of transfer prescribed under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, following the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gulshan Malik vs. CIT in ITA No. 55 of 2014 and CIT vs. RL Sood (2008) 109 taxman 227/245 ITR 727 (Delhi). Thereafter, AO made the disallowance of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s. 54 of the Act as against the deduction claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- following the decision of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench in ACIT Circle-2 vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Jain Sons HUF, January 31, 2012 as per the details in the impugned assessment order dated 4.2.2…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 5901/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

…the period of one year prior to the date of transfer prescribed under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, following the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gulshan Malik vs. CIT in ITA No. 55 of 2014 and CIT vs. RL Sood (2008) 109 taxman 227/245 ITR 727 (Delhi). Thereafter, AO made the disallowance of Rs. 50,00,000/- u/s. 54 of the Act as against the deduction claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- following the decision of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench in ACIT Circle-2 vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Jain Sons HUF, January 31, 2012 as p the details in the impugned assessment order dated 4.2.2015.…

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3