How many judgments cite CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan?

66 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (286 ITR 274), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan 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 54, Section 10(20).

CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan

286 ITR 274High Court2006#1722 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).

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 54 Section 10(20)Section 10(46)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.2656/Del./2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Harminder Kaur, Vs. ITO, C/o- Sunil Arora & Ward-36(4), Associates, A-1/118, New Delhi Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi PAN :ANOPK6529P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Gunjan Jain, CA Respondent by Sh. Gurmel Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 04.01.2021 Date of pronouncement 10.02.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 28/02/2017 p…

Shri Vijay Champak Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.281/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri O P Meena – Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.281/AHD/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vijay Champak Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pachhlu Faliyu, Near Water Ward-6(4), Surat Tank, Bharthana, Vesu, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BEWPP0109Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rasesh Shah - CA Respondent by : Shri O P Meena – Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 01/09/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. By way of this appeal,…

ITO, Corporate Ward - 2 (2), Chennai vs. Smt. Rekha Shetty, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2777/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S.Jayaraman & C.O. No.106/Chny/2019 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vijaya Prabha,Addl.CIT,D.R

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND C.O. No.106/Chny/2019 Assessment year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Rekha Shetty, O/o Corporate Ward – 2(2), No. 359,North Main Road, 5th Room No.514, floor, Anna Nagar West, Wanaparthy Block,121,M G Road, Chennai 600 101. Chennai. [ PAN AAHPR 3883 R] (Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Revenue by : Ms. Vijaya Prabha,Addl.CIT,D.R A…

Smt. Renu Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 5(2), Jaipur

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 96/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…Courts as under: “15. He has relied upon the following decisions: CIT v. Shri Jagtar Singh Chawla, [2013] 33 taxmann.com 38/215 Taxman 154 (Punj. & Har.) : 8. A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in a case reported as CIT 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 used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income Tax under Section 139 of the Act and that it would include extended period to file retu…

Smt.Tahera Begum, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 613/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.B.S.Balachandran, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT-DR

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

…r deduction u/s 54F of the Act with regard to the investment made in a residential house up to the period mentioned u/s 139(4) of the Act. This view is also fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (206 CTR 361), wherein it was held that if the assessee claims exemption u/s 54F of the Act by retaining the cash, then the said amount is to be invested in the said account notified by the Central Government on this behalf. If the intention is not to retain cash but to invest in construction or any purchase of the property and if such investment is made with…

Sri. M N Sheshagiri, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3), Mysore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2203/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 234BSection 251(1)Section 54

…he Act with regard to the investment made in a residential house up to the period mentioned u/s 10 Sri.M.N.Sheshagiri. 139(4) of the Act. This view is also fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (206 CTR 361), wherein it was held that if the assessee claims exemption u/s 54F of the Act by retaining the cash, then the said amount is to be invested in the said account notified by the Central Government on this behalf. If the intention is not to retain cash but to invest in construction or any purchase of the property and if such investment is made with…

Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3040/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3039/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat. 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8297 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3040/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S Ward-3(3), Surat. City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8296 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Hiren M.Diwan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iv, Surat Dated 27.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Page 2 Of 10 Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel & Other Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Surat. /Ita No’S.3039 & 3040/Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2010-11

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

…e ld.CIT(A) and the same is reproduced in para 2.5 on the order of the same is reproduced below: “2.5 During the course of appeal proceedings, written submissions were made, relevant portion of which is reproduced below:- (i) CIT V/s Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 8 & 9. (ii) CIT V/s Miss Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 10 & 11. (iii) CIT V/s Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 259 CTR (P&H) 388. Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 12 & 13. The perusal of the above judgments clearly shows that the Hon'ble…

Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3039/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

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

Mrs. Rajyashree Shyam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle - 18 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 2114/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2114/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-2017. Rajyashree Shyam, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.A-1405, Of Income Tax, Radiance Mandarin, Corporate Circle 18(1) No.1, Pallavaram Chennai 600 034. Thioraipakkam Raidal Road, Chennai 600 097. [Pan Agcps 0649F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2114/CHNY/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2016-2017. Rajyashree Shyam, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.A-1405, of Income Tax, Radiance Mandarin, Corporate Circle 18(1) No.1, Pallavaram Chennai 600 034. Thioraipakkam Raidal Road, Chennai 600 097. [PAN AGCPS 0649F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri.R. Vijayaragha…

Rajan Gunba Telang, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 21, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2440/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Subhash S. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

…, there is no need for depositing it in capital gain account scheme within the due date of return of income as provided under section 139(1) of the Act. In this context, he drew our attention to the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Rajesh Kumar Jalan, [2006] 286 ITR 274 (Gau.); 6 Rajan Gumba Telang ii) Fathima Bai v/s ITO, [2009] 32 DTR (Kar.) 243 (Kar.); iii) CIT v/s Jagriti Aggarwal, [2011] 339 ITR 610 (P&H); iv) Kishore H. Galaiya v/s ITO, [2012] 137 ITD 229 (Mum.); v) Bina Indrakumar v/s ITO, [2012] 137 ITD 238 (Mum.); vi) Gajendra Kumar T. Agarwal v/s ITO, [2011] 11 ITR (Trib.) 640 (Mum.); vii) Anil Kumar…

Kamlesh Ranka, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Intl. Taxation-II, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Kamlesh Ranka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Intl. Taxation-Ii, Pan: Acbpr 3953 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D. Satyanarayana Revenue By: Sri Nilanjan Dey Date Of Hearing: 22/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2019

For Appellant: Sri D. SatyanarayanaFor Respondent: Sri Nilanjan Dey

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

…at the assessee has invested the aggregate amount of Rs. 75,21,121/- (Rs. 28,67,455 + Rs. 46,56,666) within the period of due date of filing of return U/s. 139(4) of the Act. The Hon’ble Gouhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan reported in 286 ITR 274 has categorically held as follows: - “……..that from a reading of sub-section (2) of section 54 of the Act it is clear that only section 139 has been mentioned therein in the context that the unutilised portion of the capital gains on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of income un…

Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…me limit for making investment in Capital Gain Account Scheme is the due date of filing return u/s 139(4) of the Act and not the due date of filing return u/s 139(1) of the Act, he placed reliance on the following decisions : i) CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [286 ITR 274 (Gau)]. ii) CIT Vs. Jagriti Aggarwal [339 ITR 610 (P&H). iii) Fathima Bai Vs. ITO [32 DTR 243 (Kar)]. He further submitted that the decision in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT reported in 387 ITR 421 relied upon by the Ld. D.R. cannot come to the rescue of the Department and on the contrary, it favours the assessee as the facts…

Shri Kailash Bhagwan Choudhary, Indore vs. The ITO 2(3), Indore

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

ITA 68/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 54BSection 54F

…Rao 277 CTR 522 and judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jagtar Singh Chawla 259 CTR 388. The reliance is also placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274. 17. On the contrary, Ld. D.R. supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that law is clear. The due date of furnishing of return is the date, which is related to section 139(1) of the Act. He has relied on the provisions of section 54B of the Act. 18. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on reco…

Smt. Birma Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

ITA 678/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

…preting the section as contended by the assessee. [Para 6(s)] (emphasis supplied) In the instant case, the return of income is admittedly filed on 4-11-1996. In terms of section 54F(4) interpreted by the Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 286 ITR 274/157 Taxman 398 the amount subject to capital gain on sale of the capital asset for purpose of exemption, has to be utilized before the date of filing of return of income. In instant case 4-11-1996 is the date of filing the return of Income. It is not disputed that on 4-11-1996 when the return of income was filed, the entire amount which was subje…

Sri. Mammen Adeneth Pappy, Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 498/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

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

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

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No.498/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Mammen Adeneth Pappy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Adeneth, Vettipuram, Thiruvalla. Pathanamthitta-689 645. [PAN: AGXPP 7637B] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anil D. Nair, Adv. Revenue by Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Sr. DR Date of hearing 05/04/2019 Date of pronouncement 08/04/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Kottaya…

Income Tax Officer-25(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Nilima Abhijit Tannu, Mumbai

ITA 5923/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vignesh Palkar

Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…Singh Chawala, that 'Sec 54F - Deposit in capital gains account scheme by sec 139(4) is the correct due date'. ITA No. 71 of 2012 (O&M). The Honourable High Court of Guwahati, in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan on 9 August, 2006, 286 ITR 274, (Paras 6 and 11), held that from a plain reading of Sub- section (2) of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is clear that only Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mentioned in Section 54(2) in the context that the unutilised portion of the capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date…

Smt. Kancharlapalli Hemalatha, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Bcmpk6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Malik, DR

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [PAN :BCMPK6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee by : Sh…

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)

…ranted deduction u/s 54F going by the spirit of the law, hence it was requested to dismiss the 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 h…

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

…of the Act would be eligible for deduction in computing 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 ord…

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)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ (SMC) BENCH: CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2975/Chny/2017 "नधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Shri J. Devarajan, The Dy. Commissioner- Prop: Graphi Kolor, of Income Tax, Plot No.2, Business Circle-III, Irandam Kattalai Main Road, Chennai-600 034. Puthuvedu, Kovoor Post, Chennai-600 122. [PAN: AASPS 6279 D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&यथ$/Respondent) : अपीलाथ$ क' ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.A.S.Sriraman, Adv. : %&यथ$ क' ओर से /Respondent by Mr. B.Sagadevan…