How many judgments cite CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari?

53 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari (302 ITR 286), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 54F, Section 54, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 250.

CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari

302 ITR 286High Court2008#2173 most cited

What is CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari authority for?

For claiming capital gains exemption under sections 54 and 54F, it is not mandatory for the assessee to complete the construction of a residential house or obtain an occupancy certificate within the specified period, provided the capital gains are invested in the purchase or construction.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari · Section 54 exemption · Section 54F exemption · capital gains investment · completion of construction not mandatory · occupancy not required · residential house construction · delay in construction · Madras High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 54F Section 54 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250 Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54f section 54 date of transfer section 2(47)section 45 long term capital gains long term capital gain transfer section 139 prescribed income from other sources

Judgments citing CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari

RAMAUTAR SARAF (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3),, KOLKATA

ITA 2482/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsian &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 143(2)Section 54

…n fact, appellate Commissioner has not only taken note of the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Sambandam's Uday kumar case (supra), but had also taken note of the judgment of High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari[2008] 302 ITR 286, which was on similar facts as obtained in Sambandam Uday kumar's case (supra) and as such in the instant case, Appellate Commissioner allowed assessee's appeal noting that the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of High Court of Madras before Apex Court in CC Nos.3953-3954/2009 had been dismissed on 06.04.2009." 6.1. Similarly, the cas…

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

ITA 3928/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 54F

…e or in construction of a residential house, even though these transactions are not complete in all respects as required under law, same would not disentitle assessee from benefit of exemption under section 54F" • CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari, He (Madras), [2008] 302 ITR 286 "Assessee also produced completion certificates from municipal authority, Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting assessee s claim for exemption of capital gain under section 54F on ground that construction was not complete within specified period." • Subramanian Swaminathan v. ACIT, [2023] 152 taxmann.com 72 (Delhi- Trib.) "Whether sinc…

RAJNI KUMAR WIFE OF SHRI BRIG. NARENDER KUMAR H.NO.394, SECTOR-21, GURGAONN,GURGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

ITA 3188/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. SR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…ld not complete the construction and the licence for constructing the house was accordingly delayed. The learned Tribunal further noted that CIT (A) in his order relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s Sadarmal Kothani, (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Chennai) wherein, it is held that in order to get the benefit under Section 54 of the Income Tax, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. It is further noted that the assessee has invested the money and the occupancy certificate is delayed which is beyond the control of the assessee then the assessee is…

AVANASIYAPPAN ESWARAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO,WARD 1(2), TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1666/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

…axmann.com 198 (Madras) Dt.15.10.2020 ii. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Umayal Annamalai reported in [2020] 118 taxmann.com 80 (Madras) Dt.22.07.2020 iii. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari reported in [2008] 302 ITR 286 (Mad) Dt.17.06.2008 iv. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramachandra Rao reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 163 (Madras) Dt.14.07.2014 v. ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Seetha Subramaniam vs. ITO reported in [1996] 59 ITD 94 (Mad) dt. 25.04.1996 vi. ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of Sunayana Devi vs. ITO reported in [201…

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

…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 pages 129-138 of PB Relevant findings of ITAT vide para 9 & 10…

ARVINDBHAI RAMNIKLAL RAVAL HUF,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 19/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ (Huf)308, Chhapania Street, 1(3)(6), Surat, Room No.303, 3Rd Vs. Adajan, Surat-395 009 Floor, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeha 1847 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 250Section 54F

…elevant part of the said sale ITA No.19/SRT/2024/AY.17-18 Arvindbhai R Raval HUF agreement. He submitted that assessee is required to invest and not purchase by registered deed. For this, he relied on the decisions in cases of (i) CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad) (ii) CIT vs. Shahajada Begam 73 CTR 229 (AP), (iii) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan vs. DCIT 154 taxmann.com 102 (Surat- Trib.), (iv) CIT vs. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda 211 ITR 804 (Bom) and (v) Sanjeev Lal vs. CIT (2014) 46 taxmann.com 300 (SC). He submitted that all payments have been made and TDS was also deducted. Hence, conditions of Sec…

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 210/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…t. 28.09.17 Asst CIT VS Subhash Sevaram Bhavnami (ITA No.928/Ahd/2012 Dt. 29.6.12) 23 Taxmann.com 94 Kapil Kumar Agrawl VS DCIT Gurgaon in ITA/2630/Del/201 Order Dt. 30.4.19 CIT VS Bhart Mishra (Delhi High Court) 265 CTR 374 In CIT VS Sardarmal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Madras High Court) relying on the observation of Supreme Court held Section 54F is a beneficial provision and is applicable to an assessee when the old capital asset is replaced by a new capital asset in form of a residential house. Once an assessee falls within the ambit of a beneficial provision, then the said provision should be liberally int…

SHRI. VADAGUR NARAYANAPPA PREMACHANDRA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1032/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R.Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar .E, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

…ind any error in arriving at such a conclusion. Therefore, we are of the view that the said substantial question of law would not arise for consideration in this appeal.” 17. We have also gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 302 ITR 286 (Mad) in the case of CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari and Anr., cited by the assessee in which it was held as follows: “Held, dismissing the appeals, that admittedly the assessees had purchased the land by investing the capital gains and had constructed residential houses. Circular No. 667 dated October 18, 1993 ([1993] 204 ITR (St.) 103), did not stipu…

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)

…umbai in Shri Hasmukh N. Gala vs ITO 20(1)(3) in ITA No.7512/Mum/2013 pronounced on 19.08.2015 I.T.A. No.868/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Basabdutta 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 Karnatak…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 ITO, Ward 6(4), Pune Prakash Ramkrishna Pophale 501-B, Ghorpade Peth, Vs. Pannal Chambers, Shivaji Road, Swargate Corner, Pune – 411042 PAN: AFPPP5151F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prasad Bhandari Department by : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 12-06-2024 Date of pronouncement : 25-06-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 20.12.2023 of the CIT(A) / N…

SUBHASH CHAND KASERA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 47(1), NEW DELHI

Ground of Appeal 2 and 3 are dismissed

ITA 4092/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…on under Section 54/54F, it is not necessary construction should be completed within the stipulated period as prescribed. In this respect the assessee relied upon very many judgments as follows :- (i) CIT Vs. Sardarimal Kothari and another [2008] reported in 302 ITR 286 (ii) Smt. Ranjeet Sandhu Vs. DCIT [2011] reported in 16 taxmann.com 210 (iii) Smt. Shashi Verma Vs. CIT reported in [224 ITR 106 (MP)] (iv) B.B. Sarkar Vs. CIT reported in [ 1981] 132 ITR 150 (Cal.) (v) CIT Vs. Smt. Brinda Kumari [2001] reported in 114 Taxman 266 (Delhi) (vi) CIT Vs. R.L. Sood [2000] reported in 108 Taxmnan 227 (Delhi) (vii) Smt.…

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

…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 the statutory period had no control on the completion of the construction and obtaining of the occupation…

DHANANJAY MADHUKAR NAIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledhananjay Madhukar Naik V. Ito 12(3)(3) 306, Meghdoot Chsl, Sahaji Raje Marg Room No. 1631, 16Th Floor Koldongri, Vile Parle (W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400057 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Alrpn7498M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Anil Masand Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

…ts of the above cases are similar to that of the assessee 7.11. It is held in various judgments examined by the tribunal and courts that the beneficial provisions should be interpreted taking a lenient view. 7.12 In the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari [2008] 302 ITR 286 (Mad.) (Placed at PB Page No. 212-214) the Madras High court held that Section 54F of Income tax Act is a beneficial provision for promoting the construction of residential house and requires to be construed liberally for achieving that purpose. The intention of the Legislature was to encourage investments in the acquisition of a 15 Dhananjay Mad…

ITO COMPANY WARD 5(1),, CHENNAI vs. VIKAS KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 498/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, (Advocate)- Ld. AR

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

…e joint owners. Thus, substantial portion of net consideration so received was re-invested within stipulated period from the date of transfer of capital asset. Relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court in CIT vs Sardarmal Kothari and Shanthilal Kothari (302 ITR 286), it was held that construction need not be completed within stipulated time to claim the benefit u/s 54F. Similar was the view of Chennai Tribunal in Mr. Kannan Chandrasekhar vs ITO in ITA No.2932/Mds/2016 wherein it was held that what was necessary is that the construction should be commenced. 5. So far as the issue of depositing the unappropri…

DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE V(2),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI UTTAM KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 497/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, (Advocate)- Ld. AR

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

ITO COMPANY WARD 5(1),, CHENNAI vs. GAUTHAM KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 496/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, (Advocate)- Ld. AR

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

ITO COMPANY WARD 5(1), , CHENNAI vs. PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 495/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, (Advocate)- Ld. AR

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

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

…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 claims to have get allotment of flat in the year 1984, but cou…

VINODCHANDRA T PARIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 457/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 457/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Vinodchandra T. Parikh, I.T.O, 31, Shail, Vs. Ward-2(1)(2), Opp. Madhusudan House, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, A.R with Shri Aman K. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Deelip Kumar Sr., DR

Section 27lSection 54Section 54ESection 54F

…complete the construction and the licence for constructing the house was accordingly delayed. The Tribunal further noted that Commissioner (Appeals) in his order relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari [2008] 302 ITR 286 wherein, it is held that in order to get the benefit under section 54, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. It is further noted that the assessee has invested the money and the occupancy certificate is delayed which is beyond the control of the assessee then the assessee is entitled for deduction under…

PRAKASH RAGHUNATH MANJARKAR,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE , , SATARA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1990/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 54F

…see could not complete the construction and the licence for constructing the house was accordingly delayed. The learned Tribunal further noted that CIT (A) in his order relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s Sadarmal Kothani, 302 ITR 286 (Chennai) wherein, it is held that in order to get the benefit under Section 54 of the Income Tax, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. It is further noted that the assessee has invested the money and the occupancy certificate is delayed which is beyond the control of the assessee then the assessee is…

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3