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

M/S. Fiberfill Engineers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1853/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri A.T. Varkey:Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 M/S Fiberfill Engineers Vs. Acit Circle 38(1), C-9/9574, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi-110070. (New Circle 63(1),Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaff 6313 P ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gautam Jain Adv. P. Kamal Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Rehka Vimal Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2016. Date Of Order : 25/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rehka Vimal DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 22(1)Section 22(3)Section 54Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610, wherein it was, inter alia, held that the provision of sub-section (4) to section 139 was not an independent provision, but relates to the time contemplated under sub-sec. (1) of section 139. b. CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan 286 ITR 274, wherein it was, inter alia, held that the assessee could fulfill the requirement u/s 54 of the I.T. Act for exemption of the capital gain from being charged to income-tax on the sale of property used for residence 4 ITA 1853/Del/2015 by filing return before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the comple…

ITO 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5798/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Ward-13(2)(2), Flat No.3804, 38Th Floor, बनाम/ R. No.477, 4Th Floor, Shreepati Arcade, A-Wing, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A.K.Marg, Nana Chowk, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400036 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadpg0200D

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ए,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Ward-13(2)(2), Flat No.3804, 38th Floor, बनाम/ R. NO.477, 4th floor, Shreepati Arcade, A-Wing, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A.K.Marg, Nana Chowk, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400036 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AADPG0200D राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Mohammed Rizwan "नधा"रती क" ओर से /…

Smt. Selvi Venkatasubramanya vs. ITO

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

ITA 1052/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsmt.Selvi Venkatasubramani, No.3, 12Th Cross, 6Th Main, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560003. … Appellant Pan: Aavpv4348P Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 9(4), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Ramesha, JCIT(DR)
Section 54Section 54F

…eposit in the scheme should have been made before the initial due date and not the extended due date is an untenable contention. Smt.Selvi Venkatasubramani. Page 8 of 9 12. The Gauhati High Court in CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 206 CTR (Gau) 361 : (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau) has taken a similar view that the time-limit for deposit under the scheme or utilisation can be made before the due date for filing of returns under s. 139(4). ” Thus it is clear that if the assessee has utilised the entire capital gain by purchase of a house or construction of the new house within the stipulated period, the benefit of sec…

Shri. D. Muthukumar, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 863/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazshri D Muthukumar, No.3-J, Iii Kristal Japer, Kasavanahalli, Off Sarjapur Road, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 54F

…7 contention of the Revenue that the deposit in the scheme should have been made before the initial due date and not the extended due date is an untenable contention. 12. The Gauhati High Court in CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 206 CTR (Gau) 361 : (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau) has taken a similar view that the time-limit for deposit under the scheme or utilisation can be made before the due date for filing of returns under s. 139(4). 8. Thus, in view of the decision of Hon’ble High Court if the assessee has invested the sale proceeds in new residential house, within the period of filing the return of income u/s…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Shri. Prashanth Prakash, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 864/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…4). The contention of the Revenue that the deposit in the scheme should have been made before the initial due date and not the extended due date is an untenable contention. The Gauhati High Court in CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 206 CTR (Gau) 361 : (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gau) has taken a similar view that the time-limit for deposit under the scheme or utilisation can be made before the due date for filing of returns under s. 139 (4). & CO 86/Bang/2015 Page 11 of 24 For the reasons and discussions made above we answer the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee. The appeal is allowed.” In the pres…

ITO vs. R. Srinivas

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

ITA 79/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2015AY 2008-09
For Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, JCIT (D.R.)
Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…the Act. In support of this proposition, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Nipur Mehrotra (supra); the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Jalan reported in 286 ITR 274 and of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Fatima Bai (supra). 6.5.3 The fact that the assessee has invested the entire sale consideration / capital gains in the purchase of the site and in the construction of the residential property thereon by 31.3.2010 is not disputed. The dispute raised by revenue is that since the assessee fai…