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

Virender Kumar Sharma, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-67(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5150/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2013-14 Virender Kumar Sharma, Ito, Ward- 67(1), 1240, Sector-37, Arun Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 54

…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…

Bhagwan Swaroop Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 263/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Punam Rai (D.CIT)
Section 24Section 48Section 54

…at it should be purchased exclusively in his name. Therefore, the house purchase in the name of his wife was held to be eligible for the benefit u/s 54/54F. The ld AR has also relied upon the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora 342 ITR 38 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court held that as per section 54 house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. 9. As regards the benefit of section 54 is available for more than one house the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon by the decision of Hon’…

Mrs.Kavita Tiwari, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

ITA 1916/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazmrs. Kavita Tiwari, D-202, Adarsh Residency, 8Th Block, Jayanagar, Sangam Circle, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan – Acvpt1583G. Appellant By : Shri R.E Balasubramaniam, C.A Respondent By : Shri M.K Biju, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -10-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramaniam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M.K Biju, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…tion. That is the view taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Courts and we ITA No.1916/B/16 11 respectfully agree with the view expressed in the aforesaid judgment." 6.4 In the case of CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38/[2011] 203 Taxman 289/15 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi) the facts are quite similar to the instant case. All the payments were made by the assessee on the purchase of residential house jointly in the names of the assessee and his wife. The AO then referred to Section 54F of the Act and allowed 50% of the exemption claimed under Section 54F of the Act. Th…

Sh. Ravi Kant Tyagi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 and additional ground of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2251/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiravi Kant Tyagi, Vs. Ito, Flat No. 36, Sadbhawana Apartment, Ward-46(1), 13, Ip Extn, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Abtpt3527G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA
Section 143Section 54

…Ravi Kant Tyagi V ITO A Y 2010-11 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ravi Kant Tyagi, Vs. ITO, Flat No. 36, Sadbhawana Apartment, Ward-46(1), 13, IP Extn, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:ABTPT3527G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA Assessee by: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/08/2017 Date of pronouncement 09/10/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A)-XXX, New Delhi dated 18.02…

Shri Sukhram Mukati, Indore vs. The ITO WD-3(3), Indore

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

ITA 409/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 143Section 54BSection 68Section 69Section 69A

…Shri Sukhram Mukati & Shri Vishnu Mukati v. ITO 3(3) Indore/ I.T.A. No. 409&410/Ind/2014/A.Y.08-09 Page 1 of 26 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE "ी सी.एम.गग", "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 1.Shri Sukhram Mukati V. 1. Income Tax Officer 83/3, Khatipura, Sukhila, 3(3) Indore Indore PAN: CGVPS1260D 2. Shri Vishnu Mukati 83/3, Khatipura, Sukhila, 2. Income Tax Officer 3(3) Indore Indore…

Jitendra B. Faria, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6792/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Shri Jitendra V Faria Vs. Ito 18(2)(1), Mumbai- Room No.09, ‘C’Block, 3Rd 400012 Floor, Hari Niwas, L J Road, Shivaji Park, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aaapf1956E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 54

…e with his brother. 9. Under these facts and circumstances, there is no justification for giving 50% benefit of investment in the new house. The issue is also covered by the decision of hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Ravinder Kumar Arora (2012) 342 ITR 38 (Del) wherein High Court held that the assessee was entitled to full exemption u/s. 54F when the full amount was invested by the assessee even though the property was purchased in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. It may be appreciated that even in the case before the hon'ble Delhi High Court, the AO had allowed exemption only to the e…

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

…raging the housing sector. Therefore a liberal /beneficial interpretation/construction be given to Section 54F(4) of the Act. In support reliance is placed upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38; (iii) Section 54F(4) of the Act has deliberately used the word "appropriation" while extending its benefit. It is used in addition to be utilized with a view to extend the scope of its benefit. The word "appropriation" means setting apart. Therefore once an agreement to purchase the flat was executed on 16th July, 1996 and the consideration was s…

Vivek Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Us. The Assessee Has Also Purchased A Residential Property On 23.05.2011 For A Purchase Consideration Of Rs. 30,00,000/- In The Name Of His Wife, Smt. Nikita Jain & Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Which Is In Dispute Before Us.

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Samadhani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)
Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 139/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Shri Vivek Jain, DCIT, Circle-7, Vs. Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACNPJ3952H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Ms. Shivangi Samadhani (CA) & Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT) l…

Shyam R. Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed

ITA 5736/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5736/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Shyam R. Gupta Income Tax Officer Flat No-F2/703, 11(1)(4) Vs. Poonam Kunj,Poonam Nagar Ayakar Bhavan, Mahakali Craves Road, New Marine Lines, Andheri East Mumbai. Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adqpg7610M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sambit Mishra
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54

…was to purchase the new property. There are plethora of judgments in which the investment made by husband and wife have been exempted u/s.54 of the Act. In this regard, we are citing few judgements on record i.e. decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court [2012] 342 ITR 38 (Delhi) dated 27.09.2011 in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax V. Ravinder Kumar Arora and decided by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court [2012] 349 ITR 80 (Karn.) dated 26.09.2011 in case titled as Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) and Another Vs. Mrs.Jennifer Bhide and decdied by Hon’ble Madras High Court [2010] 235 CTR (Mad) 588 d…

DCIT, Dehradun vs. Smt. Nilima Dutt, Dehradun

ITA 352/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajesh Gupta & Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50Section 54Section 54E

…nd Smt. Purabi Devi has undisputedly not invested any amount towards making payment of sale proceeds of the new property. 12. To support his contentions, ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the judgments cited as – (i) CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora – (2012) 342 ITR 38 (Del.); and (ii) CIT vs. Kamal Wahal – (2013) 351 ITR 4 (Del.), rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The ratio of both the judgments is that, “when new residential 8 ITA No.352/Del./2016 property has been purchased by the assessee in joint names of assessee and his close relative by investing the entire amount of long term capital gain, the as…

Madhav Ramchandra Karode, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3443/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2015AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘बी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.3443/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Madhav Ramchandra Karode, Vs. ITO-20(2)(2)-2, Mumbai C/o M.R.Karode & Company, B- 10, Nandham Indl. Estate, Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400059 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AARPK 0271 G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Aarsi Prasad सुनवाई की तायीख /…