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

ITO 26(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Gope G. Shahani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6895/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish T. PunjabiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

…by the Delhi Development Authority on October 15, 1986, for 14 the proper guidance of the Income-tax Department and in order to carry out the letter and spirit of section 54.” 8. Even Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari [2008] 302 ITR 286 (Madras), has considered the provisions of section 54F of the Act as a beneficial provision for promoting the constructing of residential house and requires to be construed liberally for achieving that purpose. Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “There is no dispute about the fact that the assessees have invested the entire net consideration of…

R.Meenakshi, Chennai vs. ITO Ncw (17) (2), Chennai

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

ITA 2448/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2448/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 139(1)Section 54F

…t was a submission that the assessee having constructed the new residential house, the assessee may be granted the benefit of deduction in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sardarmal Kothari and Another reported in [2008] 302 ITR 286 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that if the assessee establishes the investment of the entire Capital Gains in the purchase of :- 3 -: the land within the stipulated period, the completion of the construction was immaterial and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s.54F of the Act. 4. In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently suppor…

Dr. Gopalan Narayanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 2087/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2087/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 54E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’/ ‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ / ’SMC’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद!य, के सम" | BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2087/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Dr.Gopalan Narayanan, The Income Tax Officer, C/o. Mr.G.Vasudevan, International Taxation-2(1), No.70, R.E.Apartments, 1st Floor, Annexe Building, 7th Floor, Arya Gowda Road, West Mambalam, 121, Nungambakkam High Chennai-600 033. Road, Chennai-600 034. [PAN: AIMPN 9226 B] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) : अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.…

Shri Shiv Charan Singh Bais, Bhopal vs. The ITO WD-3(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 54

…e can be placed on the following case laws in which it is held that exemption u/s. 54 is available even if the construction of new house is not completed within statutory period:- CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar Karnataka H.C. 72 DTR 232 CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad. H.C.) Mrs. Seetha Subramanian vs. ACIT 56 TTJ 417(Mad.) Smt. Ranjeet Sandhu vs. DCIT 133 TTJ 64 I.T.A.T., Chdg.” Shivcharan Singh 2. Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). The Assessi…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Charumathy Seshadri, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 886/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. N.R. Govindarajan, CA &
Section 139Section 54F

…ue date for filing return u/s. 139 which was 30.09.2011. and filed her return on 22.09.2011. Relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Seetha Subramanian vs. ACIT (1996) 59 ITD 94 and CIT vs Sardamal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR 286, the CIT(A) held that the assessee need not complete the construction and occupy the same within the period of three years from the date of sale of original asset, if the construction had commenced within the period of three years. In the assessee’s case not only the capital gain were invested in the purchase of land :-4-: for construction of…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Shri Bharatbhai Madhavlal Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1670/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Sept 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri A. N. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…ible for exemption u/s 54F is that construction of the new house has not been completed within 3 years from the sale of land which as per the AO is the requirement for exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Mad) on identical facts have upheld the order of Tribunal allowing exemption u/s 54F. The Hon'ble court has held as follows: - "The Tribunal has also taken note of its own earlier order in the case of Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. Asst. CIT reported in [1996] 59 ITD 94 (Mad.), wherein the Tribunal has held that, in order to get the benefit under se…

Rajpal Trehan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6113/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta &For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 133B(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 54Section 54F

…al Trehan the Act should have been allowed. A reference was made to Circular No. 667 dated 18.10.1993 issued by the CBDT and reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT & Anr. Vs Smt. B. S. Shanthikumari (2015) 126 DTR 436 (Kar.) " Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad.) " CIT Vs R. L. Sood 245 ITR 727 (Del.) " Smt. Shashi Verma 224 ITR 106 (MP) " Smt. Rajneet Sandhu Vs DCIT (2010) 133 TTJ 64 (Chd.) " Narsimha Raju Rudra Rao Vs ACIT 35 Taxman 90 (Hyd. Trib.) " Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs CIT 196 ITR 188 (SC) " Satish Chandra Gupta Vs AO 54 ITD 508 (Del. Trib.) " CIT Vs Smt. B. B. Shanthakumari 126 DTR 436 (Kar.) "…

Govindarajan Ramasamy, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2551/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2551/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…replies given in the written submissions, has completely ignored the valid decisions and circulars cited and further failed miserably to note and apply the observations of the judgements of the Hon'ble Madras High ourt in the case of CIT vs Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286. 2.3 Both the Authorities below failed and misdirected themselves in not appreciating and considering the Cited Circulars (CBDT in No. 471 dated 15.10.1986 and No. 672 dated 16.12.1993) in its proper perspective and giving it a strange interpretation. 2.4 The Authorities below failed to note and consider that the assessee had submitted his reason…

Dilip Manhar Parekh, Mumbai vs. DCIT 21(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 6169/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6169/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Dilip Manhar Parekh, The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ National Plastic, Income Tax –21(3), V. National House, Mumbai. Opp Ansa A Bldg., Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Affp4206B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad(D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 54F(3)

…ght in land and bungalow thereon and (c) even otherwise there is no requirement to complete the construction within three years . The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari and Anr. (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Mad). The assessee submitted that no independent due diligence was done and the assessee and his family members visited the site and were satisfied that bungalow was capable of being used and occupied . The assessee submitted that no notice /document suggesting interior repairs, demolition was received at the time of /subsequent to purchase. The…

Vishal Dutt, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 878/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-(DR)
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…e transactions are not complete in all respects and as requited under the law, that would not disentitle the assessee from the said benefit. 12. In fact, Madras High Court had an occasion to consider this aspect in the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari [2008] 302 ITR 286 where it has been held as under: "4. The requirement of the provision is that the assessee, within a period of three years after the date of transfer, has to construct a residential house in order to become eligible for exemption. In the cases on hand, it is not in dispute that the assessees have purchased the lands by investing the capital gain…

ITO, Vijayapur vs. M/S Basavan Bagewadi Taluka Primary Teachers Co-Op Credit Society, Vijayapur

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

ITA 1191/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2015AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Smt H.Vani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 263Section 54F

…ority in allowing the claim of sec.54F I in accordance with law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sambandam Uday Kumar reported in 345 ITR 389(Kar.) and tht of the Madras High Court in CIT Vs Sardarmal Kothari reported in (2008) 302 ITR 286. The decision of Madras High Court has attained finality in view of the dismissal of the SLP filed by the department. ITA No.1190 (B)/2015 6.The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the case law relied upon by the assessee. 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the assessee prays that the appeal be allowed. 3…

ITO 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5798/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Ward-13(2)(2), Flat No.3804, 38Th Floor, बनाम/ R. No.477, 4Th Floor, Shreepati Arcade, A-Wing, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A.K.Marg, Nana Chowk, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400036 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadpg0200D

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…l gains decides to either purchase a house or construct a house within the specified period and if he fails to do so, the statute provides as to when the capital gains are to be treated as having arisen. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Sardar Mal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Madras), CIT vs S Uday kumar (2012) 345 ITR 389 (Karnataka), CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharyaji (2012) 342 ITR 74 (Guwahati ) and CIT vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153 (Del.), CIT vs P R Sehshadri 329 ITR 377 (Karn.), CIT vs Rajiv Shukla 334 ITR 138(Del.), CIT vs Ashok Kumar Rallhan 360 ITR 575 (Del.) supports our view. There is categorical finding in the i…

Commissioner of Income Tax - Xv vs. Bharti Mishra

ITA - 567 / 2013HC Delhi18 Dec 2013
Section 54Section 54F

…High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax 2013:DHC:6526-DB ITA No. 567/2013 Page 5 of 13 versus Sardarmal Kothari and Another, (2008) 302 ITR 286 in which it has been held as under:- “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 cost of expendi…