CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora

342 ITR 38High Court2012#2256 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.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 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 54FSection 54Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 45Section 139(1)Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 54(2)section 54f(1)section 54(1)section 54bsection 54ftransfer of capital assetlong-term capital assetsection 54date of transferindexed cost of acquisitionsection 45beneficial owner

Judgments citing CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora

Meena Thiagarajan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3195/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri N.Arjun Raj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…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…

Kaushlendra Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-5(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 May 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri C.P. Chawla (ITP)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271FSection 54F

…ain vs DCIT Circle-2 Jaipur, A.Y. 2012-13. Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT- Vs (III) Shri Kamal Wahal (Delhi HC) (2013) 351 ITR 4. Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri (IV) Ravindra Kumar Arora (Delhi) (2012) 342 ITR 38 (Del). (V) Decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri Natarajan (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad). Decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case (VI) of CIT Vs Shri Gurman Singh (2014) 327 ITR 278. Decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT (VII) Vs Mrs. Jennifer Bhide 349 ITR 80. The ld. CIT(A) has not…

Anitha Bobba, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1863/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri N. Srikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 158BSection 250(6)Section 54Section 54B

…dential houses, should be liberally interpreted. Issue involved • Whether for claiming deduction of capital gains under section 54F, the new residential house needs to be purchased by the assessee in his own name? HELD • In CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38/[2011] 203 Taxman 289/15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi), it was held that where the entire purchase consideration was paid only by the assessee and not a single penny was contributed by any other person, preferring a purposive construction against a literal construction, more so when even applying the literal construction, there is nothing in section 54F…

Ramphal Hooda, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 5, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 8478/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C.A. And Ms. Umung Luthra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 260Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…the revenue. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.” 8 ITA.No.8478/Del./2019 Shri Ramphal Hooda, New Delhi. 4.2. He has also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38 (Del.) in which it was held as under : “Whether the exemption under Section 54F is extendable to the assessee for the total consideration paid by him, for the purchase of the new asset (the residential property) in the joint name or the exemption would be entitled to the extent of the share of the assessee in the said purchased property. - Held t…

Sakharam Bhondve, Pune vs. Income Tax Office, Ward -9 (1), Pune

ITA 951/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan
Section 48Section 54B

…e reinvestment in the name of spouse is eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act and considered the purposive construction of the provisions. Further, ld. Counsel relied on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s judgement in the case of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora, 342 ITR 38 (Delhi-HC) in support of the case of the assessee. 9. On hearing both the sides on this issue of investment of capital gains in the assessee’s wife, I find the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kamal Wahal (supra) and the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Arora (supra) helps the assesse…

Balak Ram, Ghaziabad vs. ITO), Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad

The Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8318/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Ekta Vishnoi, Sr. DR
Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 8318/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 BALAK RAM, VS. ITO, WARD-1(5), GARH DIDAULI, GHAZIABAD MURADNAGAR, GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH-201206 (PAN: BPXPR8270) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: Sh. Anoop Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Parashar, Adv. Revenue by: Ms. Ekta Vishnoi, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad relating to Assessment Year 2009- 10. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterate…

Jagjit Singh, Panipat vs. Pr.CIT, Karnal

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 2777/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 54B

…sions of various courts quoted as under :- (a) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court 327 ITR 278 in the case of CIT Ludhiana Vs Curnam Singh. (b) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 214 Taxman 287 in the case of CIT XII vs Kamal Wahal (c) Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 342 ITR 38 in the case of CIT Vs Ravinder Kumar Arora. (d) Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench ITA No 21 (Asr) / 2015 in the case of Dy CIT Vs Jit Singh. In all the above mentioned cases the Hon’ble Courts have held that the purpose of the section 54, 54B, 54EC and 54F are to ensure that the investment is made in the 11 ITA.No.2777/Del./2018 Shri Jagjit Singh, Pan…

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

…capital asset belonging to the assessee, the assessee has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. ACIT Vs. Deepak Kumar Dhawan (2014)23 TTJ 600 (Ind) 2. CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh (P&H) (2010) 327 ITR 278 3. CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (2012) 342 ITR 38 (Delhi) 4. DIT Vs. Jennifer Bhide (2011) 15 Taxmann.com 82 (Kar.) 5. Rajaram Patidar Vs. ITO 1(2) Bhopal in ITA No.371/Ind/2015 dated 28.9.2018. 14. The reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal rendered in ITA No.371/Ind/2018 in the case of Shri Raja Ram Patidar Vs. ITO dated 28.9.2018 this Tribunal after considering various case law…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Arpita S. Bajla, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6098/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 133(6)

…is has been accepted by the department after an assessment u/s 143(3). That therefore the mere fact that the assessee's name appears in the sale agreement is of little consequence. That in this connection reliance is placed on the case of Ravinder Kumar Arora 342 ITR 38 (Del) which has been passed following the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd: 226 ITR 625 (SC). It has been held in these cases that mere mentioning of name of close family members does not make them the owner of the property. That considering the principle of constructive ownership, the case has to be allowed in fa…

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

…ated 18.08.2016 in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs CCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 2 (Bombay) considered a number of decisions on the issue including the case of CIT vs. K. Ramachandra Rao [2015] 230 Taxman 334 (Kar.), CIT vs. Ravindra Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38 (Del.) and distinguished the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of CIT Vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan (Supra) as relied upon by the appellant and held as under: "As the instant case is for assessment year 1996-97, it is the amended provision which applies. Therefore, now section 54F(1) which grants exemption from Capital gain tax where…

Kanaiyalal Muljibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.649/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR with Shri Mehul Talera, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…essary to purchase new house only in the name of individual, and if other family members has also been made as co-owners, then also exemption under section 54F could be claimed. A reference to the following decision was made: i) CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora, 342 ITR 38 (Del) ii) DCIT Vs. Mrs. Jeniffer Bhide, 349 ITR 080 (Kar) iii) CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal, 351 ITR 04 (Del) iv) Chitrang M. Dave, ITA No.2627/Ahd/2017 5. On due consideration of the above facts, we find that ITAT in the case of Shri Chitrang M. Dave rendered in ITA No.2627/Ahd/2017 (supra) has allowed the exemption under section 54F. In this case, the a…

Sri Dheeraj Govindappa, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 2724/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2724/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Dheeraj Govindappa, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, 1183, 3Rd Cross, 3Rd Stage, Ward – 4[2][2], Hal Layout, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Bpqpg 3893 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Satya Sai Rath, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Sai Rath, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54F

…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 54Fto 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the investment which stands in the name o…

Gulab Guruappa Hulsure, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2762/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…Before me, Revenue has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the assessee was not the real owner of the new asset purchased by the assessee. I find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora reported in (2012) 342 ITR 38 (Del) has held that when the investments in the new house was made by the assessee and for safety reasons, the name of his brother was included, there was no justification in AO’s action in restricting the deduction to 50% of the value of the new property. The Hon’ble High Court has further held that Sec.54F of the Act mandates that the house sh…

Allan Emanuel Fernandes, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2493/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.M.Rajapurkar
Section 54F

…nt in residential houses and should be liberally interpreted. The ld. AR to further support his contentions placed reliance on the following decisions:- i) CIT Vs. V. Natarajan, reported as 287 ITR 271 (Madras) ii) CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora, reported as 342 ITR 38 (Delhi) iii) DIT Vs. Jennifer Bhide reported as 349 ITR 80 (Kar.) iv) Mir Gulam Ali Khan Vs. CIT reported as 165 ITR 288 (AP) 6. On the other hand, Rajesh Gawli representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned orders. The ld. DR submitted that the provisions of section 54F mandates that the capital gains arising from sale should b…

Shri Chitrang M Dave, Vadodara vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2627/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.DR
Section 54Section 54F

…usion of the name of the father cannot stand in the way of the deduction legitimately accruing to the assessee. He further added that similar issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora 342 ITR 38. Shri Chitrang M. Dave vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2013-14 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently argued in favour of the orders passed by the authorities below. 5. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the respective parties. We have perused the relevant materials available on record. We find substance in the argument advanced by the Ld. AR. We…

Smt. Uma Nandwani, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1413/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shobhit TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54Section 54F

…s allowed the exemption of Section 54 in respect of assessee and her husband, i.e., 2/3rd and the 1/3rd for the son has been denied. He submitted that now there is a decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ravindra Kumar Arora, reported in 342 ITR 38 (Del) wherein the Hon'ble High has held that even if the property has been purchased jointly with the wife then also exemption cannot be denied on the ground that purchase has been made in the name of one assessee and it is not necessary that house should be purchased only in the name of assessee and benefit should be denied if it is purchased joi…

The ITO, 2(5), Indore vs. Late Shri Ram Prasad Banglewala L/H Shri Mahesh Banglewala, Indore

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 40/IND/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No.40/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Late Shri Ram Prasad Banglewala L/H Shri 2(5), Mahesh Banglewala, Indore. 930, Bijalpur, Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Awqpb0658P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 31.05.2018
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

…. is also eligible for claim of exemption u/s 54B of the Act provided the investment is out of sale consideration received on sale of original asset notably the decisions in the case of CIT Vs Gurnam Singh, (P&H) 327 ITR 278(2010), CIT Vs Ravinder Kumar Arora,342 ITR 38(Delhi)(2012) & DIT Vs Mrs. Jennifer Bhide 15 Taxmann.com 82 -: 8 :- Late Shri. Ram Pd. Banglewala (Kar)(2011). It is also argued by the appellant that if two views are possible the view favourable to the appellant is to be adopted. The total investment in purchase of the new asset is Rs. 18929432/- which is more than the capital gains computed by…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed and cross-objection filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 910/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.910/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-21(1) (Erstwhile बिधम/ Shri Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, Acit-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado Chsl, Vs Road, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Parel, Mumbai-400012 Co. No.147/Mum/2016 (Ita. No. 910/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-21(1) (Erstwhile Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, Acit-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado Chsl, Vs Road, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Parel, Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpm2137J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals As Well As Cross Objection Against The Order Dated 27.11.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011-12. Ita. No.910/M/15 Co. No. 147/M/2016 A.Y. 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar (DR)
Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 48Section 53ASection 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.910/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT-21(1) (Erstwhile बिधम/ Shri Arvind Kumar Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, ACIT-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado CHSL, VS Road, 1st Floor, Piramal Chambers, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Parel, Mumbai-400012 CO. No.147/Mum/2016 (ITA. No. 910/Mum/2015) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Arvind Kumar बिधम/ ACIT-21(1) (Erstwhile Aggarwal, Flat No.805-806, ACIT-18(1) Room No. 116, Vs. El-Dorado CHSL, VS Road, 1st Floor, P…

Smt. Bhavna Hitesh Rawal, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2743/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 554F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2013-14 Smt. Bhavna Hitesh The ITO, Rawal, A-501, Ward-5(1)(1), Pratishtha Apartment, Vs Ahmedbad Nr. Bodakdev Fire (Respondent) Station, J.B. Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad PAN: ACEPR7744N (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Sunil Talati, A.R. Date of hearing : 04-12-2017 Date of pronouncement : 30-01-2018 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, arises from orde…

Ganesh Chawla, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 452/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Podar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena
Section 54F

…th 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…