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).

66

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 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

ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5644/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito-(It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Mrs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, C/O 17Th Floor, Room No. 1727, C C Dayal & Co. Cas. Jeevan Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Udyog, 278, D.D. Road, Fort, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Acapg8593Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Cit (Dr) Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, Ar Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018. Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit(A)’]And Arises Out Of The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Grounds Of Appeals Read As Under: 1. Whether On Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Deduction Under Section 54 For Investment Of Capital Gain In Purchase Of New Residential House In Australia & Thus Allowing The Shifting

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 ITO-(IT)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Mrs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, C/o 17th floor, Room No. 1727, C C Dayal & Co. CAS. Jeevan Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Udyog, 278, D.d. Road, Fort, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400001 PAN No. ACAPG8593Q Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT (DR) Assessee by : Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, AR Date of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date of pronouncement: 27/06/2018. ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the…

ITO Ward - 1(3), Thane vs. Kalpana Pradeep Ambre, Thane

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5156/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Smt. Kalpana Pradeep Ward-1(3), Ambre, बनाम/ Room No.10, 6Th Floor, 1801, Pristine Vasant Lawns, Vs. Ashar It Park, B-Wing, Pokhran Road No.2, Wagle Indl. Estate, Majiwada, Thane(W)-400604 Thane(W) (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aafpc0868D

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 45Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘एच’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Smt. Kalpana Pradeep Ward-1(3), Ambre, बनाम/ Room No.10, 6th Floor, 1801, Pristine Vasant Lawns, Vs. Ashar IT Park, B-Wing, Pokhran Road No.2, Wagle Indl. Estate, Majiwada, Thane(W)-400604 Thane(W) (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.AAFPC0868D Shri Ram Tiwari-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"…

Asst CIT 34(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vasavada, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6741/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Shri Manish Vasavada Income Tax-34(2), Room Vs. 1604, Premium Tower, No. 205, 2Nd Floor, C-12, Lokhandwala Complex, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai- Andheri (W), 400050. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aacpv9012F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. B.V. Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)

…income. The assessee had instead invested after the due date u/s 139(1) but before the belated return filed u/s 139(4). The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision in Kishore H. Galaiya v. ITO 137 ITD 229, Jagriti Aggarwal (supra), CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau.), Anilkumar Omkar Singh (supra), and held that the intent of time limit allowed u/s 54(2) to be that u/s 139(4) instead of section 139(1). As the assessee in the instant case had invested in new property before filing of return of income on 26.03.2014 u/s 139(4), the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the deduction u/s 54 of the Act. 5. Be…

Thulasi Narayanamurthy, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 3103/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 54

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण ,’ ए ’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु"आर. एलरे"डी, "या"यक सद"यएवं, "ी एस जयरामनलेखा सद"य समक् BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. No. 3103/Chny/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Thulasi Narayanamurthy, The Income Tax Officer, No. 21, Old No. 10, 3rd Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -3(5), Wallace Garden, Chennai 600 034. Chennai – 600 006. [PAN: ABYPN 3072E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ(/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. T. Banusekar, CA Revenue by : Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JC…

K.K.Srinivasan, Salem vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 148Section 54F

…he scheme or utilisation can be made before the due date for filing of return under section 139(4) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondent also relies upon a Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court reported as CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati). 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act is, in fact, a proviso to sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. Section 139 of the Act fixes the different dates for filing the returns for different assessees. In the case of the assessee as the respondent, it is…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Harish Chander Khullar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3758/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Harish Chander Khullar, Ward 27(2), Vs. E-88-B, Mansarover Garden, Room No. 1909, New Delhi – 110 015 E-2 Block, Civic Centre, (Pan: Aafpk8788A) Minto Road, New Delhi – 110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. : 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER, SH. HARISH CHANDER KHULLAR, WARD 27(2), VS. E-88-B, MANSAROVER GARDEN, ROOM NO. 1909, NEW DELHI – 110 015 E-2 BLOCK, CIVIC CENTRE, (PAN: AAFPK8788A) MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR Assessee by : None ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 28/4/2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, Ne…

ITO, Chennai vs. Shri Habibullah Inayathullah, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2611/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DRFor Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 48Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2611/Mds./2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year :2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Habibullah Inayathullah, Non-corporate Ware -1(2), 1-B,iifloor,Jubilee Villa flats, No.6,Lalitha Nagar, 1st street, Chennai. Papanasam Sivan salai, Mylapore, Chennai -4. [PAN AAAPI 6841 H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से…

ACIT, Cir-I, Siliguri vs. Mrs Harmeet Kaur, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1482/KOL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1482/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, -Vs- Mrs. Harmeet Kaur Siliguri (Pan : Afupk 9262 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr For The Respondent : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

…under sub-section (1) of section 139. Therefore, sub-section (4) has to be read along with sub- section (1). Similar is the view taken by the Division Bench of the Karnataka and Gauhati High Courts in Fatima Bai (2009) 32 DTR 243 and Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati) respectively. In view of the above, we find that due date for furnishing the return of income as per section 139(1) of the Act is subject to the extended period provided under sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act. Consequently, the question of law is answered 4 Mrs. Harmeet Kaur A.Yr.11-12 against the Revenue and in favour of the…

Inder Sen Setia, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6598/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2012-13 Inder Sen Setia, Vs. Ito, D-13, M.K. Residency, Ward 64(3), Plot No.8-B, Sector-11, New Delhi. Dwarka, New Delhi. Pan: Ahmps1140C

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Nanda, CA
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54F

…the remaining amount of Rs.31.40 lac was ITA No.6598/Del/2016 3 utilized by the assessee before the due date of return u/s 139(4), there cannot be any denial of benefit u/s 54F of the Act. The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Guwahati) has held so in the context of section 54, whose language is same. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Jagruti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H). The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT and Anr vs. Smt. Vrinda P. Issac (2011) 64 DTR 376 (Kar) has held that if the amount is paid before the…

Shri Uday Sood, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4834/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Shri Uday Sood Vs. The I.T.O 1005, Sector – 15 Ward – 8(2) Faridabad, Haryana New Delhi Pan : Adzps 5454 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr- DR
Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…3 which is due date of return u/s 139(1) of the Act which the A.O has allowed and not the amount of Rs. 1,35,16,645/- which the assessee has paid. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Jalan reported in [2006] 286 ITR 274, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that the assessee can fulfill the requirement of section 54 of depositing the unutilized portion of the capital gain on sale of residential property in notified scheme upto the expiry of time limit for filing return u/s 139(4) of the Act. 6 9. Referring to the decision of th…

Ravi Kant HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4174/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ravi Kant Huf, Income Tax Officer, Mohanlal Jain &Co., Ward-23(4), बनाम/ Chartered Accountant, Mumbai Vs. 10, Chartered House, Gr. Floor, Dr.C.H. Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabhr0354M

Section 139(1)Section 260ASection 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)Section 54F

…the entire amount has been paid to the developer before the last date prescribed to file its return of income. Thus, the issue would stand concluded by the decision of the Gauhati High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 274 (c) As against the above Mr.Malhotra learned Counsel for the revenue in response submits as under (i) On plain interpretation of Section 54F(4) of the Act the petitioner has not utilized the entire net consideration taxable under the head Capital Gains for purchase of the flat. Nor had the appellant deposited the balance unutilized consideration…

Kalpana Sundar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-8(1), Chennai

ITA 2153/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2153/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. Kalpana Sundar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 4/3, Sri Janakas, 2Nd Cross Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(1), Street, East Kamakodi Nagar, Chennai. Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. [Pan:Cnvps4092J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of Tax Exemption Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54FSection 64

…findings of the Assessing Officer by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT 387 ITR 421, wherein, when the decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274 was relied on, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the decision of one High Court is not a binding precedent upon another High Court and at best can only have persuasive value. It is pertinent to note that while deciding the appeal against the assessee in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has…

Subhash Kumar Tharayil, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 31(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 921/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Usha KadamFor Respondent: M/s. Beena Santosh-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 54

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण “ ई” "यायपीठ अिधकरण "यायपीठ "यायपीठ मुंबई "यायपीठ मुंबई मुंबई म"। मुंबई म"। म"। म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं पवन"सह "याियक सद"य Before Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Shri Pawan Singh,J.M. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.921/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष"ष"ष"ष" /Assessment Year: 2010 11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण Mr. Subhash Kumar Tharayil Income tax Officer-Ward-24(3)(3) A-703, Orion, Vasant Galaxy Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai. Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (W) Vs. Mumbai-400 090. PAN: ACYPT 0414 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"…

Shri Jnanendra Nath Banerjee, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-24(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1466/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. Counsel &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 50CSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

…ted u/s 139(4) of the Act is to be construed as substantial compliance with the provisions of section 54(2) of the Act and for which, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan reported in (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau). Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal in the case of Nipun Mehrotra reported in (2008) 297 ITR (AT) 110 (Bangalore). It was pleaded that the assessee had time to reinvest in another property upto time limit specified u/s 139(4) of the Act i.e 31.3.2007 and the assessee had invested a sum of Rs. 35,48,000/- o…

Gopal Saran Darbari, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1249/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Saurabh Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1248 & 1249/Del/2013 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 GOPAL SARAN DARBARI, Vs. ITO, WARD 11(1), 187, NEELGIRI APARTMENTS, NEW DELHI ALAKNANDA, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAFPD152OP) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Saurabh Goel, CAs Revenue by : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. The Assessee has filed these two Appeals against the separate Orders dated 22.1.2013 and 10.1.2013 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi pertai…

Gopal Saran Darbari, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1248/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Saurabh Goel, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1248 & 1249/Del/2013 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 GOPAL SARAN DARBARI, Vs. ITO, WARD 11(1), 187, NEELGIRI APARTMENTS, NEW DELHI ALAKNANDA, NEW DELHI (PAN: AAFPD152OP) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Amit Goel, Sh. Saurabh Goel, CAs Revenue by : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. The Assessee has filed these two Appeals against the separate Orders dated 22.1.2013 and 10.1.2013 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi pertai…

Mahendra Motilal Banthia, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 39

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

ITA 7151/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1168, 7151 & 1169/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Mr. Mahendra Motilal Vs. Acit/Dcit, Cc-39, Mumbai Banthia, 169/A, Moti Mahal, M.G.Road, Panvel, Navi Mumbai-410206 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aiyb 7531 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kothari याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Pooja Swaroop सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2009-2010, In The Matter Of Imposition Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay KothariFor Respondent: Smt. Pooja Swaroop
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…uested to delete unwarranted penalty levied on the returned income accepted as it is. As per ld. AR the aforesaid proposition has been explained by various Hon'ble High Court in various judicial pronouncements sated here under: CIT v Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 276 (Gauhati) CITvJagriti Aggarwal (2011) 3391TR 610 (P&H) CIT v Jagtar Singh Chawla ITA No. 71 of 2012 vide order dated 20103/2013 Fathimabai v ITa ITA No. 435 of 2004 vide order dated 17/10/2008 Lastly reliance was placed on the jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT decision in the case of ITA Central (Thane) v Gope M Rochlani ITA No. 7737 mum/2011 AY 2008-0…

Mahindra Motilal Banthia, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cne Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 1169/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1168, 7151 & 1169/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Mr. Mahendra Motilal Vs. Acit/Dcit, Cc-39, Mumbai Banthia, 169/A, Moti Mahal, M.G.Road, Panvel, Navi Mumbai-410206 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aiyb 7531 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kothari याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Pooja Swaroop सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2009-2010, In The Matter Of Imposition Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay KothariFor Respondent: Smt. Pooja Swaroop
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…uested to delete unwarranted penalty levied on the returned income accepted as it is. As per ld. AR the aforesaid proposition has been explained by various Hon'ble High Court in various judicial pronouncements sated here under: CIT v Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 276 (Gauhati) CITvJagriti Aggarwal (2011) 3391TR 610 (P&H) CIT v Jagtar Singh Chawla ITA No. 71 of 2012 vide order dated 20103/2013 Fathimabai v ITa ITA No. 435 of 2004 vide order dated 17/10/2008 Lastly reliance was placed on the jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT decision in the case of ITA Central (Thane) v Gope M Rochlani ITA No. 7737 mum/2011 AY 2008-0…

Mahindra Motilal Banthia, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cne Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.1168, 7151 & 1169/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Mr. Mahendra Motilal Vs. Acit/Dcit, Cc-39, Mumbai Banthia, 169/A, Moti Mahal, M.G.Road, Panvel, Navi Mumbai-410206 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aiyb 7531 M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kothari याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Pooja Swaroop सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2007-2008 & 2009-2010, In The Matter Of Imposition Of Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay KothariFor Respondent: Smt. Pooja Swaroop
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…uested to delete unwarranted penalty levied on the returned income accepted as it is. As per ld. AR the aforesaid proposition has been explained by various Hon'ble High Court in various judicial pronouncements sated here under: CIT v Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 276 (Gauhati) CITvJagriti Aggarwal (2011) 3391TR 610 (P&H) CIT v Jagtar Singh Chawla ITA No. 71 of 2012 vide order dated 20103/2013 Fathimabai v ITa ITA No. 435 of 2004 vide order dated 17/10/2008 Lastly reliance was placed on the jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT decision in the case of ITA Central (Thane) v Gope M Rochlani ITA No. 7737 mum/2011 AY 2008-0…

ACIT, Cuddalore vs. Umayal Annamalai, Chidambaram

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

ITA 415/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri.N. Quadir Hoseyn, Adv
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54ESection 54F

…tion of filing of return of income i.e. 139(4) of the IT Act. The Ho'ble ITAT A Bench in the case of Anil Kumar Aurora reported in [2013] 37 CCH 221 (Mum) also held the similar view. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Jalan reported in 286 ITR 274 held that the capital gains is not chargeable when the appellant has purchased the new property before the extended due date of filing of return u/s 139(4) of the IT Act for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s 54 of the IT Act. Utilization of the funds in constructing the residential house within the stipulated period should be treated as suffi…