CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari

302 ITR 286High Court2008#2171 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.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 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 54FSection 54Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54fsection 54date of transfersection 2(47)section 45long term capital gainslong term capital gaintransfersection 139prescribedincome from other sources

Judgments citing CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari

Rajesh Mirajker, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 59/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Rajesh Mirajker, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 4/1, Abu Castle, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 925, Poonamallee High Road, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpm 9213 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.M.Karunakaran, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 54

…on- completion of house, deduction u/s.54 of the Act, cannot be denied. The assessee had also argued in light of certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari reported in [2008] 302 ITR 286 and submitted that if entire sale consideration is invested in residential house, the assessee need not complete construction of house. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant facts and also taken note of various facts brought by the AO, opined that the AO has erred in not allowing deduction u/s.54 of the Act, for re-investment of capital ga…

Narasimhan Rangarajan, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-14(5), Chennai

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

ITA 423/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.423/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr.Narasimhan Rangarajan, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.8, Plot No.28, Sixth Street, Non-Corporate Ward-14(5), Balaji Nagar, Nanganallur, Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Aegpr 8372 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Y. Sridhar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.G. Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2022

For Respondent: Mr.G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 54ESection 54F

…uction claimed by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) without appreciating the facts, has confirmed the additions made by the AO. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari reported in (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Mad) and also the decision in the case of CIT v. Smt.Charumathi. 5. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that condition prescribed for claiming exemption u/s.54F of the Act, is to complete construction of house within three years from the date of transfer of original asset. In the present case, evide…

ITO Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Chennai vs. A.M.K.Shahul Hameed, Chennai

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

ITA 1253/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1253/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri A.M.K. Shahul Hameed, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Vs. Old No. 5, New No. 9, Rangan Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aabph6895F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai Dated 11.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 01.06.2013 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.10,82,700/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Following Due Process, The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 2

For Appellant: Shri AR V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A
Section 2Section 54Section 54F

…sidential units it is the contention of the appellant that the delay was attributable to the builder. To resolve the issue on hand it is pertinent here to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari [2008] 302 ITR 286 (Madras) wherein it was declared as follows: In order to get the benefit under section 54F, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. Circular No. 667, dated 18.10.1993 ([1993] 204 ITR (St.) 103) would not in any way advance the case of the revenue to come to the conclusion that in order to have the benefit…

Rajesh Chand Surana, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54ESection 54F

…years as per the judicial precedents and what is required is that investment should be made in construction of house within the specified period of three years. A reference was made to the decision rendered in the case of : - CIT vs. Sardarmal Kohari (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Mad), Page Nos.160 to 162 of Paper Book, relevant finding on page no.162; - Bhavana Cuccria vs. ITO (2017) 165 ITD 124 (Chd.) Page Nos.119 to 129 of Paper Book, relevant findings on page no.129; - Pr. CIT vs. Dilip Ranjrekar (2019) taxmann.com 114 (Karn.) Page Nos.130 to 132 of Paper Book, relevant findings on page no.131; - Bal Kishan Atal v…

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

…D.', (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 findings are based on appreciation of evidence on r…

Estate of Late Dr. S. Zakaulla Masood, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 775/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodiaassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guruprasad, Jt.DIT
Section 54

…tion is not complete and it is not in a fit condition to be occupied does not disentitle the assessee to claim s. 54F relief. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court followed similar decision rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad). We are therefore of the view that even on the basis of non-completion of construction of the new asset within the period of 3 years, the deduction u/s.54 of the Act cannot be denied to the Assessee. Page 7 of 7 11. In the present case, we are satisfied on the basis of evidence produced by the assessee that a building had come up over the…

Sri Omkar Chadha, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 346/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 346/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Omkar Chadha, Vs Income Tax Officer, I-39, Jangpura Extn., Ward-54(3), New Delhi-110014 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc8329G Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2020

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 54F

…se' within the time specified are complied with. The assessee is therefore eligible for deduction under Section 54 in respect of both the apartments simultaneously acquired.” 15. We have also examined the rationale enunciated in the case of Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 as to the liberal construction of the provisions of the Act. 16. The ld. DR argued that there has been an amendment in the provisions of the Act wherein “a residential house” has been amended as “one residential house” and argued that this amendment is clarificatory in nature, hence the case laws mentioned above are no more applicable to the ins…

Keshav Dutt Shreedhar, Shimla vs. DCIT, Shimla

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/CHANDI/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vishal MohanFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 54

…ld have the position of law which has been well appreciated by the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs R.L. Sood (2000) 245 I TR 727; CIT Vs Kuldeep Singh (2014) 226 Taxman 133; CIT Vs Smt. B.S. Shanthakumari (2015) 60 taxmann.com 74 and CI T Vs Sardar Mal Kuthari 302 ITR 286. The sum total of the legal view can be summarized that where the assessee having invested substantial amount in the purchase of a new asset within the specified period, the assessee could be said to have acquired substantial domain over the property entitling him for claim of exemption. The Board’s Circular clarifying the position for DDA all…

C.Anitha, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1038/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1038/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. C. Anitha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No.25, New No.26, Non Corporate Ward 1(1) Vaidyaraman Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aalpa 8804D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 251Section 47Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1038/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. C. Anitha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No.25, New No.26, Non Corporate Ward 1(1) Vaidyaraman Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [PAN AALPA 8804D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate : ""य…

ITO 1(2), Gwalior vs. Smt Reena Agrawal, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 54Section 54F

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income-tax Officer, vs. Smt. Reena Agarwal, Near Hari 1(2), Gwalior. Nirmal Talkies, Nai Sadad, Gwalior. PAN: AELPA2217G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Rajendra Sharma & Shri Manuj Sharma, Advocates Date of Hearing 04.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement 18.07.2019 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: This appeal is being filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated 20.11.201…

Sri Siva Ramakrishna Mulpuri, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/HYD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Sri Siva Ramakrishna Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Mulpuri, Income Tax, 8-2-120/117/10, Park Circle-6(1), View Enclave, Road No.2, Hyderabad. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Pan: Afapm 7610 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Krishna Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2019 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali KrishnaFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…control of the assessee to ensure that the developer fulfils his contractual obligation within the stipulated period. The Ld. AR further relied on the decision of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari reported in 302 ITR 286 and various other decisions cited in the order of the Ld. CIT in order to justify his stand. The Ld. AR therefore argued that the deduction granted by the Ld. AO U/s. 54F of the Act is valid and is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as claimed by the Ld. CIT. It was therefore submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT invoking his powers…

Kapil Kumar Agarwal, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 54Section 54F

…he assessee has referred to several judgments of the Tribunal thereafter in which the aforesaid reasoning and interpretation of Section 54/54F has been followed. Reference has been made to the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari , [2008] 302 ITR 286 in which it has been held as under:— Kapil Kumar Agarwal Vs DCIT "3. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessees have invested the entire net consideration of sale of capital asset in the land itself and subsequently the assessees have invested large sums of money in the construction of the house. The cost of investment in land and the…

ITO, Ward - 2(3), Siliguri vs. Smt. Saroj Rani Gupta, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1613/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…not been executed or the construction is not completed does not disentitle the assessee to claim relief u/s 54F of the Act. The Ld. A/R also made citation of a number of judicial pronouncements in support of his submission. In CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Mad), it was held that the assessee, in order to get the benefit under section 54F, 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 stipulated period. Secondly, the A.O. contended that the appellant has purchased two different flats…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Sravanthi Koduru, New Delhi

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6796/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Shiv Mahajan, CA, Ms. Jyoti Saxena, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…from the date of transfer of the capital asset. Since the assessee has not preferred any appeal against the quantum disallowance, as confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A), the same has attained finality. However, in the case of CIT vs. Sadarmal Kothari reported in 302 ITR 286 (Mad), the question raised before the Hon’ble Madras High Court was, “Whether, on the facts and in 4 the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding, when the conditions laid down in sub- section (1) of section 54F and the Board Circular No. 667, dated October 18, 1993[1993] 204 ITR (St.) 103), clear…

Shri Vijay Mahipal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 502/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Mahipal -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aekpm 9834 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…t be a ground to deny the benefit of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The ld.counsel for the assessee in this regard has placed reliance on the 6 7 Shri Vijay Mahipal A.Yr.2013-14 decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad). The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the aforesaid decision in the context of deduction u/s 54F of the Act came to the conclusion that it would be enough if the assessee establishes that he has invested the entire net consideration within the stipulated period. The Chennai Bench of ITAT in the case of Mrs. Seetha Subramanian vs ACIT 59 ITD 94…

Suja Ganessan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 10(4), Chennai

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

ITA 250/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita, JCIT
Section 54

…CIT(Appeals), the Ld.counsel submitted that the Inspector, 3 I.T.A. No.250/Chny/18 who was said to have inspected the premises, found that the construction was not completed. Referring to the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR 286 and the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT (1996) 59 ITD 94, the Ld.counsel submitted that it is not necessary that residential building has to be completed before the due date. What is required, according to the Ld. counsel, is investment of capital gain before the due date. In this case, according to the L…

Jagdish Wadhwani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 975/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 54

…e following decisions :- Bhavna Cuccria vs. ITO (2017) 82 taxmann.com 306 (ITAT Chandigarh) R.S. Sharma vs. ITO (2015) 55 taxmann.com 187 (Karnataka High Court) Ranjit Narang vs. CIT (2015) 317 ITR 322 (Allahabad) CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari & Others (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Madras 6 Shri Jagdish Wadhwani, Jaipur. The ld. A/R has submitted that the deduction to the extent of the amount utilized for acquisition or construction of the house is to be granted in the year of transfer of asset and the condition of completion of the construction is to be looked into only after the window period provided by the Act of 3…

Smt.Manju Mahendra Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Section 45Section 54

…v. State of Haryana [2012] 340 ITR 1/[2011] 202 Taxman 607/14 taxmann.com 103 (SC)(para 3) and Gulshan Malik v. CIT [2014] 223 Taxman 243/43 taxmann.com 200 (Delhi). The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs 21 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Sundarmal Kothari (302 ITR 286)(Mad.) observed/held as under:- “The relevant assessment year is 2001-02. The assessees, Shri Sardarmal Kothari and Shri Shanthilal Kothari, filed their respective returns of income admitting a total income of Rs. 3,02,593 apart from the agricultural income of Rs. 25,000 each. The assessees have claimed exemption of capital gain tax under sectio…

ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Shashanka Ghosh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

Section 54

…of 2013), order dated 10/03/2017. On the other hand, Shri Ketan L. Vajani, ld. counsel for the assessee, defended the impugned order by claiming that the impugned issue is covered by the decision from Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286, Kishore H. Galaiya vs ITO137 ITD 229, Hasmukh G. Gala vs Income Tax Officer 125 DTR 299(Mum.) and CIT vs Ram Gopal 372 and 498 (Del.). Our attention was invited to the copy of allotment letter (pages 1 to 11 of the paper book) and copy of the registered agreement of sale (pages 12 to 135 of the paper book). 2.1. We have considered the rival…

The DCIT, Circle 1(3), Vadodara vs. Smt. Jagrutiben Harishkumar Chokshi, Vadodara

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3422/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Roydcit, Smt. Jagrutiben बनाम/ Circle – 1(3), Harishkumar Chokshi, Vs. Vadodara – 390 007. Chokshi Bazar, Padra, Vadodara. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abepc 7231 J .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shir M. K. Patel, A.R.

For Respondent: Shir M. K. Patel, A.R
Section 54F

…of the construction of the residential house beyond a period of three years could not lead to denial of claimed exemption. In this regard, the assesee placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Sardarmal Kothari [2008] 302 ITR 286 (MAD), where it was held that in order to get benefit u/s 54F, assessee need not complete construction of house and occupy the same. 6.5 It is clear from the material available on record that the assesee had invested a sum of Rs.1,01,82,000/- out of the Capital Gains in plot DCIT vs. Smt. Jagrutiben Harishkumar Chokshi Asst.Year –2012-13 no. 14,…