CIT v. Sambandam Udaykumar

345 ITR 389High Court2012#2440 most cited

What is CIT v. Sambandam Udaykumar authority for?

Assessees are entitled to capital gains exemption under Section 54 or 54F if sale proceeds are invested in a residential house. This benefit applies even if the construction or purchase transaction is not fully completed.

48

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. Sambandam Udaykumar · Section 54 exemption · Section 54F exemption · capital gains exemption · investment in residential house · incomplete construction · residential property purchase · transfer of capital asset · non-completion of transaction · capital gains benefit

Also reported as

251 CTR 371

Sections most often in play

Section 54Section 54FSection 45Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54B

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54(2)section 54f(1)section 54ftransfer of capital assetlong-term capital assetsection 54date of transfersection 45indexed cost of acquisitionsection 17long term capital gain

Judgments citing CIT v. Sambandam Udaykumar

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2086/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…al flats. The Hon’ble High Court had held that the four residential flats constitute “a residential house” for the purpose of Section 54 of the Act. Also, we may herein observe that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka had in CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar (2012) 345 ITR 389 (Kar), inter alia, observed, that once it was demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchasing a residential house or in the construction of residential house even though transactions are not complete in all respects and as required 15 Surender Kumar Bhojwani vs. ITO (Int. Taxn-1), Hyd under law, th…

DCIT(CC)-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASHISH MEHDIRATTA, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3568/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 54

…and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition Rs 4,78,80,000/- as against the disallowance of deduction under section 54 of the income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the case of CIT vs Sambandam Uday Kumar, (2012) 345 ITR 389, the Hon'ble Karnataka HC are not similar issue in the instant case" 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition Rs.29,45,765/- as against the addition made on rental income received from the tenant i.e. Hindustan Unilever Ltd(HUL), NSE and Varun Beverages Ltd without appreciating the fact that the a…

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA NARESHKUMAR MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenueis dismissed

ITA 3724/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Ito – 19(3)(1), Mumbai Sangeeta 405, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs Nareshkumar Mehta 1701 & 1702, 17Th Floor, Maharashtra - 400012. Aakashdeep, V.P. Road, Maharashtra – 400004. [Pan: Agbpm8012F] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 17Section 254(1)Section 54Section 54F

…f house property within year from the sale of another property he would be entitled to benefit provided under section 54 even though no registration within said period. We further find that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs Sambandam Udai Kumar (2012) 345 ITR 389 (Kar) / (2012) 19 taxmann.com 17 (Kar) held that once it is demonstrated that consideration received on transfer of a capital asset is invested in a residential property, fact that transactions involved in purchase or construction of such residential property are not complete in all respects would not disentitle assessee from benefit of exemp…

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

…of document is imperative. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, i.e., the assessee is entitled to exemption in terms of section 54.” 7.5 Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Sambandam Udaykumar reported in (2012) 345 ITR 389 has held that the provision of section 54 of the Act has to be construed liberally for achieving the purpose for which it was incorporated in the statute. The intention of the Legislature was to encourage investments in the acquisition of a residential house and completion of construction or occupation is not the requirement of IT(IT)A No.258/Ban…

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Varadarajan D.P., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 45Section 54

…of document is imperative. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, i.e., the assessee is entitled to exemption in terms of section 54.” 7.5 Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Sambandam Udaykumar reported in (2012) 345 ITR 389 has held that the provision of section 54 of the Act has to be construed liberally for achieving the purpose for which it was incorporated in the statute. The intention of the Legislature was to encourage investments in the acquisition of a residential house and completion of construction or occupation is not the requirement of law. The words use…

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)

…A No.272/Chd/2017 dated 05.02.2018 page no.87 to 98. (vi) That, in the instance case, there is no dispute, that, the total sale proceed has been invested in the construction of new houses and the Hon'ble High Court, the CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar reported in 251 CTR 371 took the view that, once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer of capital asset has been invested in or construction of residential house, even through the construction is not completed in all respect as required under law, assessee cannot be denied benefit under section 54F. In view of the above submission, it is clear…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 54

…led to exemption in terms of section 54 of the Act" ➤245 ITR 727, CIT vs. R L Sood (Delhi H.C.). ➤211 ITR 804, CIT vs. LaxmichandNarpalNagda (deceased) (Bombay H.C.). ➤216 ITR 376, CIT Vs. Mrs. Hilla JB Wadia (Bom. H.C.). 12 ACIT v. Prem Sapra A.Y. 2021-22 ➤ 345 ITR 389, CIT vs. SambandamUdayakumar (Karnataka H.C.). ➤ 302 ITR 286, CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari and Another (Madras H.C.). ➤ 224 ITR 106, Smt. Shashi Varma Vs. CIT (MP). ➤345 ITR 389, CIT vs. SambandamUdayakumar (Karnataka H.C.) ➤ITAT Delhi Bench order dated 23/01/2023 in the case of ACIT vs. Sh. Sanjay Chaudhary (ITA No. 1274/Del/2020), copy placed at p…

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

…. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) considered the submission of the assessee and relying on the judgment of jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar [(2012) 345 ITR 389 (Kar.) observed that the essence of the said provision is whether the assessee who received capital gains has invested in residential house. Once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer has been invested either in purchase of a residential house or in construction of residential house even though the transactions are not co…

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

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)

…A No.272/Chd/2017 dated 05.02.2018 page no.87 to 98. (vi) That, in the instance case, there is no dispute, that, the total sale proceed has been invested in the construction of new houses and the Hon'ble High Court, the CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar reported in 251 CTR 371 took the view that, once it is demonstrated that the consideration received on transfer of capital asset has been invested in or construction of residential house, even through the construction is not completed in all respect as required under law, assessee cannot be denied benefit under section 54F. In view of the above submission, it is clear…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. BAGALUR KRISHNAIAH SETTY VIJAY SHANKER, BENGALURU

ITA 1174/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 54

…r did not specify any defect in the documents submitted by the assessee. However, the inspector of income tax reported that the construction was not completed even after 3 years. The jurisdictional Karnataka High Court held in the case of Sambandam Uday Kumar 345 ITR 389 [Kar] that the intention of the legislature was to encourage investments in the acquisition of a residential house and completion of construction or occupation is not a requirement of law. The condition precedent for claiming benefit under the said provision is the capital gain realised from sale of capital asset should have been parted by the as…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA vs. SIVA JYOTHI PALAM, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 268/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siva Jyothi Palam, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Circle-1(1), Pan: Bksps2554L Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 04/Viz/2024 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.268/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Siva Jyothi Palam, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Bksps2554L Circle-1(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 09/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…is no infirmity in the order. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Balraj vs. CIT [2002] 254 ITR 22 (Delhi); the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar [2012] 345 ITR 389 (Karnataka) as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Smt. Suryakantham Seelam vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Visakhapatnam in ITA No. 563/Viz/2013, dated 18/08/2017. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is an admitted fact that assessee has sold t…

BASABDUTTA DUTTA. ,BANKURA vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1), KENDUADIHI, , KENDUADIHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta Dutta…………………..……………………....………....Appellant Kayasthapara, P.O+Dist – Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Adtpd8748C] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & D.K. Sen, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sallong Yaden, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Erred In Confirming Disallowance On Account Of Exemption Of Rs.1,65,52,344.00 Claimed U/S 54F On Return Of Income. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A)(Nfac) In Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is Not Justified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.7,38,588.00 Made U/S 56(2)(Vii) 3. For That The Appellant Reserves His Right To Add To, To Alter, To Amend The Grounds & To Adduce Paper & Document At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 250Section 54FSection 56(2)(VII)

…sabdutta Dutta 4. The Judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Sardarmal Kothari and Another vide [2008] 302 ITR 286 (Mad) pronounced on 17.06.2008 5. The Judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT and Another vs Sambandam Udaykumar vide [2012] 345 ITR 389 (Karn) pronounced on 15.02.2012 6. The Judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs H.K. Kapoor (Decd.) vide [1998] 234 ITR 753 (All) pronounced on 12.08.1997 7. The Judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs J.R. Subramanya Bhat vide [1987] 165 ITR 571 (Karn) pronounced on 09.06.1986 8. The Judgement of the Ld. ITAT, Delhi in Kap…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 283/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

…54F the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy it, and it was enough if the assessee established the investment of the entire net consideration within the stipulated period." 13 b. CIT Vs. Sambandam Uday Kumar reported in (2012) 345 ITR 389 (Karnataka H.C.). c. The Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur bench in the appeal No.365/JU/2009 in the case of ACIT Vs. Mahabir Prasad dated 11/02/2013, held that “As per settled, the nature of the property at the point of time of its purchase has to be considered and not its subsequent user. Accordingly we confirm the action of the learned CIT(A) in this rega…

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

…ssessee also places her reliance on the following case laws having similar facts: CIT v. Smt. B.S. Shanthakumari [2015] 60 taxmann.com 1. 74/233 Taxman 347 (Kar.) 16 Indira Giri vs. ITO CIT v. Sambandam UdayKumar [2012] 19 taxmann.com 2. 17/206 Taxman 150/345 ITR 389 (Kar.) Goverdhan Singh Shekhawat v. ITO [2019] 102 taxmann.com 3. 50/175 ITD 272 (JP-Trib) Ms. Moturi Lakshmi v. ITO [2020] 119 taxmann.com 488/274 4. Taxman 286 (mad.) Smt. Babitha Kemparajee Urs. v. CIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 5. 43/167 ITD 125 (Bang - Trib) Kannan Chandrasekar v. ITO [2017] 82 taxmann.com 6. 284/165 ITD 223 (Chennai - Trib) B)…

RAMPRASAD KAMTAPRASAD NIGAM,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21 3 1 MUMBAI, PAREL LALBAUGH

In the result, appeal has to succeed

ITA 2839/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2015-16 Ramprasad Kamtaprasad Nigam Vs. Ito -Ward 21(3)(1) Room No.207, 2Nd Floor 45A, Raichand Niwas, S.K.Bole Marg, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400 012 Pan : Aaapn3642D(Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54Section 54F

…parate proceeding and would be strictly governed by the requirements of Section 271(1)(c) of the said Act. On behalf of the appellant reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sambandam Udaykumar (345 ITR 389) and that of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs. Sardarmal Kothari(302 ITR 286) in order to submit that the completion of the construction or occupation of the new residential premises is not necessary for grant of exemption u/s.54F of the said Act. It is pointed out that the appellant having invested the amount within…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), SURAT vs. MANISH SUMATILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 382/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 254(1)Section 54F

…Rules, 1961 (in short, the Rules). To support his submission, the assessee relied upon various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunal including the decisions in Smt. B.S. Shanthakumari (2015) 60 taxmann.com 74 (Kar), CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar (2012) 345 ITR 389 (Kar), CIT Vs Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP), CIT Vs Gita Duggal (2013) 357 ITR 153 (Delhi). The assessee again along with his submission, filed application under Rule 46A of the Rules and also furnished copy of registered sale deeds of flats, floor plan drawing showing that all four units are amalgamated together to form one residential u…

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

ITA 293/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvoicateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 54

…roviding a residential house, which is also evidenced by the recitals in the sale deed, wherein he has affirmed the receipt of the advance and also paid for the new asset. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decision in the case of Sambandam Uday Kumar 345 ITR 389 [Karn], of the Jurisdictional High Court, is also relevant to facts of instant case. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court had held that amounts paid within the period of three years, would be eligible to the claim of deduction under section 54 of the I.T.Act, though the house was not registered within the period of three years or two years, cons…

SMT. S.M.SHOBA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1955/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA
Section 54F

…truction of property within the period required u/s 54(1)F or to invest in residential property within the stipulated time for enabling deduction under section 5 4F of the Act. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in decision of CIT vs.Sambandam Udaykumar reported in 251 CTR 371 took the view that, under provisions of section 54F of the Act, the condition preceded is that, capital gains realised from sale of capital asset should have been parted by assessee and invested or constructed a residential house, as the case may be. Hon’ble court also observed that, the essence of the purpose of section 54F, is whether, the asse…

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA NISHTALA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 164/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayan, JCIT(DR)
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…pulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also not correct." Page 10 of 16 4.4 It is also noted that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs Sambandam Udaykumar reported in (2012) 345 ITR 389 observed as under: "11. Section 45 of the Act makes it very clear that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save or otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H is chargeable to income tax under the head 'capital gains' and shall be deemed to be in…

MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

ITA/238/2015HC Karnataka12 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54F

…CIT VS. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.', (1994) 196 ITR 149 6 (SC) and decisions in 'CIT VS. SMT. BRINDA KUMARI', (2002) 253 ITR 343 (DEL.), 'CIT VS. MRS. HILLA J.B.WADIA', (1995) 216 ITR 376 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. SAMBANDAM UDAYKUMR', (2012) 345 ITR 389 and 'CIT VS. SADARMAL KOTHARI', (2008) 302 ITR 286 (MAD.). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that all the authorities under the Act have held that assessee has not satisfied the conditions prescribed in Section 54F of the Act and is therefore, not entitled to benefit of the aforesaid provision. The aforesaid…

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3