CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan

286 ITR 274High Court2006#1742 most cited

What is CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan authority for?

Section 139(4) of the Income-tax Act, which allows for filing a belated return, acts as a proviso to Section 139(1). Consequently, the time limit for depositing amounts or utilizing funds to claim exemptions, such as under Section 54, extends up to the due date for filing a return under Section 139(4).

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan · 286 ITR 274 · Section 139(4) · Section 139(1) · Section 54 exemption · belated return due date · capital gains investment · deposit scheme time limit · 139(4) proviso to 139(1) · capital gains account.

Also reported as

157 Taxmann 398206 CTR 361

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 54(2)long-term capital assetsection 139(4)section 80acsection 54fsection 80asection 54date of transfersection 34section 139(1)long term capital gainsection 139

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan

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

…he ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs Jagriti Agarwal (2011) 15 taxmann.com 146 (P & H), PCIT vs HP Housing and Urban Development Authority (2023) 157 taxmann.com 598 (HP), CIT vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Guwahati), Bajaj Tempo Limited vs CIT (1992) 62 Taxman 480(SC)/1996 ITR 188. 5. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the reassessment was initiated on fresh material coming to the notice of Assessing Officer, the deduction under section 80AB was claimed de…

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

…he ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs Jagriti Agarwal (2011) 15 taxmann.com 146 (P & H), PCIT vs HP Housing and Urban Development Authority (2023) 157 taxmann.com 598 (HP), CIT vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Guwahati), Bajaj Tempo Limited vs CIT (1992) 62 Taxman 480(SC)/1996 ITR 188. 5. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the reassessment was initiated on fresh material coming to the notice of Assessing Officer, the deduction under section 80AB was claimed de…

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

…he ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs Jagriti Agarwal (2011) 15 taxmann.com 146 (P & H), PCIT vs HP Housing and Urban Development Authority (2023) 157 taxmann.com 598 (HP), CIT vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Guwahati), Bajaj Tempo Limited vs CIT (1992) 62 Taxman 480(SC)/1996 ITR 188. 5. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR for the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the reassessment was initiated on fresh material coming to the notice of Assessing Officer, the deduction under section 80AB was claimed de…

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3092/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 46ASection 48Section 54

…or utilisation can be made before the due date for filing of return under s. 139(4) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent also relies upon a Division Bench judgment of Gauhati High Court in CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 206 CTR (Gau) 361 : (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau). 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that sub-s. (4) of s. 139 of the Act is, in fact, a proviso to subs. (1) of s. 139 of the Act. Sec. 139 of the Act fixes the different dates for filing the returns for different assessees. In the case of assessee as the respondent, it is 31st day of July of the assessm…

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 58/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2008-09
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 548Section 54BSection 54F

…3.10.2011. The Hon'ble\nHigh Court after drawing support from the judgment of the\nHon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatima Vs. ITO\n32 DTR 243 (Kar), and that of the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati\nin the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274\n(Gauhati), had held, that sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Act,\nis in fact, a proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. It\nwas thus, held that the period available to the assessee for making\nthe investment u/s 54 of the Act will be available up to the period\ncontemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Act. We\nt…

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

…g 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 the claim of the assessee. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal befor…

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)

…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 primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer…

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)

…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 primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer…

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)

…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 primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer…

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

…139(4) is a valid return filed under section 139(1). This decision was on the provisions of Income Tax Act 1922 which are similar to present Act. - **3.3** Tulsidas Gopalji Trust vs CIT (1994) 207 ITR 368 (HC of Bombay) - 3.4 CIT vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati) where also it was held that to fulfill the requirements of section 54 the expiry of one year should be seen as per provisions of section 139 (4). - 3.5 Fibrefill Engineers vs ACIT (2016)177 TTJ 556 (ITAT Delhi) In this case it was held that - "A bare perusal of this section (139(4)) makes it clear that the legislature itself has allowed…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD vs. JHAVERI SANDEEP BIPINCHANDRA (HUF), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 805/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2016-17 Jhaveri Sandeep Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bipinchandra (Huf), Ward-5(3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 Pan : Aachj 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 24.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Department Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Income Of Rs. 54,49,539/- As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income.” 3. The Issue Raised In The Above Ground Relates To The Short Term Capital Gain Returned By The Assessee, On The Transactions Of Dealing In Shares, As Ito Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra Huf Ay : 2016-17 2

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR
Section 250(6)

…4F is permissible as held by various courts including the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana HC in the case of Jagtar Singh Chawla (33 taxmann.com 38) which has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 286 ITR 274/157 Taxman 398 and Karnataka High Court in Fathima Bai v. ITO, ITA No.435 of 2004 Decided on 17th October 2008. 6.6 In view of the findings above and the judgments relied upon, this ground is allowed. It is hereby directed to the AO to allow the deduction u/s 54F in respect of investment in new house of Rs. 3,93,16,750/- and calculate the deduct…

RAJENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

…by the Tribunal in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the assessee and this proposition have been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Courts in the following cases:- I. CIT vs Kapil Kumar Agarwal (2016) 382 ITR 56 (P&H) II. CIT vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati) III. ITO vs K C Gopalan (2000) 107 Taxman 591 (Kerela). 7 12 Thus, the aforesaid finding of the learned CIT (A) is reversed and disallowance of Rs.2.15 Crores is deleted. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th March, 2024 [M. BALAGANESH] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 28.06.2022 passed by lear…

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

…llowed 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-agriculture) subject to premium of payment, which means conditional permission was granted. 9. The…

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

…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 assessee. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal befor…

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

…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 case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CC…

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A.&For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…m capital gain earned by him on sale of shares - Undisputedly, sale consideration had been utilized by assessee before date of filing of return under section 139(4) - Whether in view of decision of Gauhati High Court in case ofCIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 286 ITR 274/ 157 Taxman 398, wherein it was held that section 139 6 I.T.(I.T.)A. No. 64/JP/2021 Parvinder Kaur v. PCIT mentioned in section 54F will not only include section 139(1) but willalso include all sub-sections of section 139, assessee was entitled to deduction claimed - Held, yes” [CLC 1 -2] A4. For the year under consideration return u/s 139(4)…

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)

…8.2 CIT Vs. Jagtar Singh Chawla{ITA No. 71 of 2012 (O&M) date of Decision: 20.3.2013} while relying upon the judgments passed by the same high court in CIT Vs. Jagtar Singh Chawla and Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274, dealt with the same issue and held as under:- A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in a case reported as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274, held that only Section 139 of the Act is mentioned in Section 54(2) of the Act in the context that the unutilized portion of the capital gain on the sale of property…

SHRI SABBIRBHAI DAWOODBHAI SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

ITA 121/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Sabbirbhai Dawoodbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shaikh, 3(1)(4), Anavil Business Vs 7/4539, Galemandi, Centre, Adajan, Surat- Lakkad Kot, 395009 Surat Pan : Aeqps 5688 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 54

…e case of the assessee that it could fulfil the requirement of section 54-F for exemption of capital gains charged to income-tax. The assessee also relied on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2007) 286 ITR 274 (Gau). 8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee upheld the action of Assessing Officer in making disallowance of exemption under section 54-F by taking view that assessee purchased asset under section 54-F on 22.09.2011. The assessee made deposit in capital gains account beyond the due date as per section 139(1) and investme…

DIPAL SURESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 387/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: ShriTej Shah, ARFor Respondent: ShriL. P. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.387/Ahd/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) DipalSureshbhai Patel Vs. ITO 15, Gopinath Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Behind Shreeji Tower, Ahmedabad Vastrapur-380015 PAN No.ACRPP7563N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : ShriTej Shah, AR Respondentby: ShriL. P. Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement 15.04.2021 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against…

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4