How many judgments cite CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora?

51 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora (342 ITR 38), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54F, Section 54, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 148, Section 45.

CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora

342 ITR 38High Court2012#2279 most cited

What is CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora authority for?

Deduction under Section 54F cannot be restricted or denied merely because the new residential property, for which the entire consideration is paid by the assessee, is purchased in the joint names of the assessee and their spouse. The assessee is considered the actual and constructive owner of the property.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora · Section 54F deduction · joint ownership spouse · new residential property · capital gains exemption · entire consideration paid by assessee · beneficial owner · constructive ownership · restriction of deduction

Also reported as

203 Taxmann 289

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 54 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 148 Section 45 Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 54(2)section 54f(1)section 54(1)section 54b section 54f transfer of capital asset long-term capital asset section 54 date of transfer indexed cost of acquisition section 45 beneficial owner

Judgments citing CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora

KRISHAN KUMAR,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1552/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…out of sale of this very house i.e. house no.540, Pocket-A, Sector-22, Gurgaon. This issue stands covered by various decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Name a few are CIT vs Kamal Wahal [2013] 30 taxmann.com (Del HC), CIT vs Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38 (Del HC). In term of the above, we are of the view that the assessee is entitle for claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act and accordingly, we direct the AO. 7. The next issue in this appeal is as regard to order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treated the interest on saving bank account as undisclosed i…

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

…ni v. Asstt. CIT [2023] 451 ITR 153 (Delhi)/W.P.(C) 13713/2022, CM APPL. 41874/2022 & CM APPL. 41875/2022 (Delhi HC) - Followed the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 taxmann.com 307/203 Taxman 289/[2012] 342 ITR 38 (Delhi) (d) Mahadev Balai v. CIT [2018] 89 taxmann.com 334/402 ITR 117 (Raj.)/ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble High Court allowed exemption u/s 54B of the Act for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. (e) Shankar Lal Kumawat v. ITO [2021] 125 taxmann.com 347 (Jaipur - Trib.) - The assessee sold a residential house and invested…

SHRI INAMUL HAQ,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, SAHARANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Inamul Haq S/O Sh. Mohd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Yamin, Vill.Megh Chhappar, Ward-2. Ambalaa Road, Saharanpur (U.P) Saharanpur Pan: Aaiph2840K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…he view taken by the Tribunal. Apart from the fact that the judgments of the Madras and Karnataka High Courts (supra) are in favour of the assessee, the revenue fairly brought to our notice a similar view of this Court in CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora : (2012) 342 ITR 38 (Del.). That was also a case which arose under Section 54F of the Act. The new residential property was acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted the deduction under Section 54F to 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the investment which stands in the name…

SMT . RAJANI SURENDRA ADAMANE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 103/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysmt. Rajani Surendra Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur Adamane, Plot No.30, Near Ghodke School Surendra Vs. Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440024. Pan: Alapa 9897 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 250Section 50CSection 54(2)Section 54F

…vested for the purpose of new residential house in the name of some of its member, instead of HUF, still the deduction u/sec. 54F in the hands of the HUF would be permissible. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [342 ITR 38 (Del.)] has also dealt with an identical issue, wherein the house was purchased in joint ownership of spouse by the Assessee and claimed the benefit of section 54F of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court, ultimately allowed the identical claim by observing and holding as under. 2. On going through the purchase deed of the above residential house, it w…

VITHIYA MURALI,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3333/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.3333/Chny/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vithiya Murali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.51, Subramaniyampuram, Ward-1, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-609 001. [Pan: Aohpv4251M]

For Appellant: Mr.Abhishek Murali, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

…h the view taken by the Tribunal. Apart from the fact that the judgments of the Madras and Karnataka High Courts (supra) are in favour of the assessee, the revenue fairly brought to our notice a similar view of this Court in CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38/[2011] 203 Taxman 289/15 taxmann.com 307. That was also a case which arose under Section 54F of the Act. The new residential property was acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted the deduction under Section 54F to 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the in…

SMT. TEJAL KAUSHAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 25(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3303/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal Tralshawala

Section 143(2)Section 23Section 250Section 54

…d not be merely denied on hyper-technical ground. We would like to place our reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011] 15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi)/[2011] 203 Taxman 289 (Delhi)/[2012] 342 ITR 38 (Delhi)/[2012] 252 CTR 392 (Delhi)[27-09-2011], where the relevant extract of the said decision is cited herein under for the ease of reference: “10. Even when we look into the matter from another angle, facts remain that the assessee is the actual and constructive owner of the house. In CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 92 Taxman 541 / 226 ITR…

JAGDISH PARSHAD JAIN,PANIPAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KARNAL, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. JAY BHARAT MEHTA, MUMBAI

ITA 1085/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry &For Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 54FSection 68

…nce of Section 194IA of the Act. The Assessee supported the aforesaid submission by placing reliance upon the provisions contained in Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the following judicial precedents: a. CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (Del) 342 ITR 38 b. CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal (Del) 30 Taxman.com 34 c. Shri Bhatkal Ramanrao Prakash Vs. ITO (ITAT – Bangalore) (ITA No.2692/Bang/2018) d. Jitendra V. Faria Vs. ITO (Mumbai) 81 Taxman.com 16 20 Assessment Year 2021-2022 30. However, the Assessing Officer, not being convinced, made disallowance of INR.5,95,29,202/- (being 50% of deduction of INR.11,90,…

VIVEK GANGADHAR MEHENDALE,SANTACRUZ, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 22(3)(1),, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS,MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2644/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: ShriAnil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SRDR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54FSection 64(1)

…at paragraph 13 on page 4 of the order of the co-ordinate bench has held as under: - “13. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal [2013] 351 ITR 4 (Delhi) and C IT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38 (Delhi), has held that new house purchased in the name of the spouse of the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F. T he provisions of section 54 F are pari-materia with the provisions of section 54 of the Act and thus , the principle derived equally applies to section 54 as well. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has a…

PRAVIN GAMBHIRCHAND SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 26(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1668/MUM/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 45Section 54ESection 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(2)

…asset. Learned AR has thus submitted that assessee purchased only one residential house within the period provided u/s. 54F(1) of the Act after the transfer of original asset. 8. Learned AR has referred Commissioner of Income Tax V Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38 (Delhi), wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that in case of purchase of a residential house in the joint names of assessee and his wife, where wife had not contributed to said purchase, the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. Learned AR has further referred order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the co- Pravin Gambhirchand Shah (H…

MR COLATHUR N. RAM ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 34(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of what we have observed hereinabove

ITA 1464/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54

…sessee in his own name or exclusively in his name. 13. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal MANU/DE/0134/2013: [2013] 351 ITR 4 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Ravindes Kumar Arora MANU/DE/7363/2011: [2012] 342 ITR 38 (Delhi), has held that new house purchased in the name of the spouse of the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F. The provisions of section 54F are pari-materia with the provisions of section 54 of the Act and thus, the principle derived equally applies to section 54 as well. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has also…

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Kumar, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 54Section 54F

…l house need not be purchased by assessee in his own name or exclusively in his name . 13. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal [2013] 351 ITR 4 (Delhi) and C IT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38 (Delhi), has held that new house purchased in the name of the spouse of the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F. The provisions of section 54 F are pari-materia with the provisions of section 54 of the Act and thus, the principle derived equally 13 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia applies to section 54 as well. The Hon'ble Jurisdi…

GENDALAL JADHAV,INDORE vs. ITO-1(1), INDORE

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

ITA 466/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigendalal Jadhav, Ito 1(1) 168-G Palakhedi, Gandhi Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Nagar Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aphpj4675K Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2024 O R D E R

Section 54B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Gendalal Jadhav, ITO 1(1) 168-G Palakhedi, Gandhi Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Nagar Indore Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: APHPJ4675K Assessee by Shri Santosh Deshmukh, AR Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement 21.03.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 26.09.2023 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Bhop…

GOPALKRISHNA PANDU SHETTY,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHRASHTRA

ITA 2471/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

IMRAN KHAN,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO2 (2), BHYOPAL

In the result the issue No

ITA 168/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

Section 54B

…the view taken by the Tribunal. Apart from the fact that the judgments of the Madras and Karnataka High Courts (supra) are in favour of the assessee, the revenue fairly brought to our notice a similar view of this Court in CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora: (2012)342 ITR 38 (Del.). That was also a case which arose under Section 54F of the Act. The new residential property was acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted the deduction under Section .54F to 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the Page 16 of 20 ITANo.168/Ind/2023 Imran Khan por…

SIMRAN BAGGA,DUBAI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT. TAXATION, 1(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1786/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 54

…tial house need not be purchased by assessee in his own name or exclusively in his name. 13. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal [2013] 351 ITR 4 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38 (Delhi), has held that new house purchased in the name of the spouse of the assessee was eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F. The provisions of section 54F are pari-materia with the provisions of section 54 of the Act and thus, the principle derived equally applies to section 54 as well. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has also…

RAVINDER KUMAR,MEERUT CANTT. vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2265/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatravinder Kumar Vs. Ito C/O. M/S. Kartar Singh & Ward – 2(2) Co., 86, Bank Street, Meerut Meerut Uttar Prades – 250 001 Pan No. Amcpk 8771 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. P. Narang, Adv. Revenue By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.11.2023

Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ravinder Kumar Vs. ITO C/o. M/s. Kartar Singh & Ward – 2(2) Co., 86, Bank Street, Meerut Meerut Uttar Prades – 250 001 PAN No. AMCPK 8771 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri R. P. Narang, Adv. Revenue by Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 02.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 08.11.2023 PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Cent…

MUMTAZ ABDUL AZIZ THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO ,WD27(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1669/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Mumtaz Abdul Aziz Thakur Room No. 01, Ito,Wd(2)(3) Zubeida Bai Chawl, Vashi Rly St.Complex, Nityanand Nagar, Vs. Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai-400 Navi Mumbai-400 703 086 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Agapt6288R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ujjawal Chavan, Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 22-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-12-2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ujjawal Chavan, SR AR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…co-owner of the property for income tax purposes, even though her name appears in the agreement as a buyer of the property. 4) The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of learned AO who erred in not considering the case of CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora 342 ITR 38, wherein Delhi High Court pronounced that though the residential house was purchased jointly by assessee and his wife, assessee had paid stamp duty. Registration charges, not even a single penny had been contributed by the wife and that the property was purchased jointly with his wife to avoid any litigation after his death. All the funds invested…

RAMDAS PANDHARINATH KALE,(HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 436/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 54BSection 54F

…nd to an extent of Rs.72,21,240/- in individual capacity. The copy of said purchase deeds of agricultural land are furnished from pages 16 to 53 of the paper book. Further, I find the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ravinder Kumar Arora reported in 342 ITR 38 held that the provisions of section 54 of the Act are the beneficial provision which should be interpreted liberally in favour of the deduction to the taxpayer and deduction should not be denied on hyper technical ground. There is no dispute with regard to re- investment on agricultural land by the assessee in his individual capacity, the provisio…

SMT. P. CHITRA,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 13 (2),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 749/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 749/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…w asset and therefore, merely for the reason of non-completion of house property within the stipulated period, benefit of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act cannot be denied. In this regard, relied upon the following judgments: 1. CIT v Ravindar Kumar Arora (2012) 342 ITR 38 Delhi 2. CIT v Sardarmal Kothari and another (2008) 302 ITR 286 3. CIT v Sambandan Udayakumar (Karnataka High Court) 4. Nipom Mehotra v ACIT (2008) 110 ITD 520 (Bangalore) 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand referring to allotment letter from M/s. Baskar & Co., submitted that documents furnished by the assessee are not convincing. Although, assessee…

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3