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#2818 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 366,005 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

Commissioner of Income Tax –V vs. Kapil Nagpal

ITA/609/2014HC Delhi11 Sept 2015

Section 143Section 260Section 271Section 54Section 54F

…he purpose of Section 54 and Section 54F of the Act it is not necessary that there should be registered sale deed. This Court in Balraj v. CIT (supra) noticed the decisions in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) and CIT v. R.L. Sood (2000) 245 ITR 727 (Del) and held that “for the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 54 of the IT Act, it is not necessary that the Assessee should become the owner of the property. Section 54 of 2015:DHC:7552-DB ITA 609/2014 Page 14 of 15 the said Act speaks of purchase. Moreover, the ownership of the property may have di…

M/S Sri, M. George Joseph, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 13/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.R. Suresh, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivakar,JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…8,45,878 10 14.3.2008 8,45,878 11. 3.6.2008 8,45,878 12. 28.3.2011 4,72,4386 13. 28.3.2011 4,00,940 Total: 97,72,396 “ In support of this proposition, the assessee reiterated its reliance on the following judicial pronouncements; viz. CIT V R.L.Sood (2000) 245 ITR 727 (Del) and Balraj V CIT (2002) 123 taxmann.com 290. 5.3.2 The learned Authorised Representative further contended that – “ In the instant case, the appellant had invested a sum of Rs.93,71,456 for the purchase of house property from a builder, it is a case of construction of flat and not a case of purchase of residential flat for the purpose of ap…