How many judgments cite CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain (217 ITR 363), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54, Section 54F, Section 143(3), Section 2(47), Section 250, Section 271(1)(c).

CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain

217 ITR 363High Court1996#2709 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain authority for?

The date of purchase of a new residential property, for claiming exemption under Section 54, is the date the assessee obtains possession of the flat, especially for under-construction properties, rather than the date of agreement or registration.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain · Section 54 · capital gains exemption · date of purchase · date of possession · new residential property · under-construction flat · benevolent provision · liberal interpretation · 217 ITR 363

Also reported as

75 Taxmann 145

Sections most often in play

Section 54 Section 54F Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 250 Section 271(1)(c)Section 234B Section 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)long-term capital asset purposive interpretation section 54f indexed cost of acquisition date of transfer section 54 section 2(47)section 45 long term capital gain long term capital gains fair market value

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain

SHASHANK MERCHANT,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7525/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, C.A. & Shri Veetrag Chhajed – CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

…ore the assessee was rightly entitled to claim the deduction under section 54 of the Act. In support of the above contention, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Beena Jain [1994] reported in 217 ITR 363 (Bom.) dated 23.11.1993, wherein the Hon’ble Court observed as under: “The assessee who is the respondent before us had sold office premises on 23-7-1987 which resulted in long-term capital gains of Rs. 24,05,050. Prior to the sale she had entered into an agreement for purchase of a residential flat which agreement was dated 4-9-1985. The agreem…

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 32(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 4975/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4974/Mum/2025 & 4975/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2014-15) Kishore Anand Shetty Vs. ACIT, Circle-32(2), A-4502, 45th Floor Mumbai Tower A, Oberoi Esquire Off Western Express Highway Goregaon East Mumbai- 400 063 PAN/GIR No.AAGPS2681D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 03/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): These two appeals have been preferr…

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE-32(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4974/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4974/Mum/2025 & 4975/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2014-15) Kishore Anand Shetty Vs. ACIT, A-4502, 45th Floor Circle-32(2), Tower A, Oberoi Mumbai Esquire Off Western Express Highway Goregaon East Mumbai- 400 063 PAN/GIR No.AAGPS2681D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 03/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 आदेश / O R DER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): These two appeals have been preferred by th…

POONAM DHANANJAY SANDU,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 2050/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270A(3)Section 270A(9)Section 54

…h handed over within a period of 15 days from 20.03.2017. 19. Judicial Precedents Supporting the Appellant's Claim: (Case Law Paper Book Submitted during the course of hearing) Sr. Particulars Page Relevant No. No Para 6 CIT Vs. Been Jain (1996) 76- Para 2-3, 217 ITR 363 (Bom HC) 77 pg 76-77 7 Prateek Rajendra Kapadia 78- Para 6, Vs. ITO (2024) 164 84 Pg. 76-77 taxmann.com 762 (Mum.ITAT) 8 Sunil Amritlal Shah Vs. ITO 85- Para 20- 162 taxmann.com 676 91 25 Pg 90- (ITAT) 91 9 Ramdas Sitaram Patil Vs. 92- Para 9-10 ACIT (2024) 208 ITD 620 95 Pg (Pune ITAT) 95 10 ITO Vs. Sunil Shiv Khanna 96- Para 8, Pg (ITA No. 5857…

PAYAL KISHORE KULCHANDANI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3647/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3647/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-2013) Payal Kishore Kulchandani V/S. Income Tax Officer 1201, Badrinath, Opp. Khar बिाम Ward22(2)(5), Gymkhana, 15Th Road, Mumbai Khar West, Mumbai 400052. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug,Parel, Mumbai - 400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aappk0518C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

…by the Ld. AR on various decisions of the Co- ordinate Benches which have in turned relied on the order of the Hon’ble P a g e | 4 ITA No. 3647/Mum/2025 Ay 2012-2013 Payal Kishore Kulchandani Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain 217 ITR 363 (Bom). In this case, Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has upheld the decision of the ITAT wherein it had come to the conclusion that the date of possession of the new residential premises was the relevant date of purchase for the purposes of allowing exemption u/s.54 of the Act instead of the date of agreement and the date of registration for pu…

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

…m of deduction under section 54 should be reckoned from date of handing over of possession of flat by builder to assessee and not date of registration of flat - Held. yes [In favour of assessee]". ➤148 taxmann.com 34, Sanjay Vasant Jumde v ITO (Pune - Trib). ➤217 ITR 363, CIT vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain (Bombay H.C.) ➤76 taxmann.com 368 Bastimal K. Jain v. ITO (Mumbai - Trib.). 11. Supreme Court judgment in the case of Balram Singh vs. Kelo Devi as relied upon by the AO (copy enclosed at pages 115-121 of PB) was clearly distinguishable as was explained by the Assessee before the CIT(A) - kindly refer to pages 5 & 6 of…

JITENDRA SHARMA, ACIT, CIRCLE-19(1), MUMBAI vs. MANJU RAMESH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4536/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4536/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Acit, Circle-19(1) V/S. Manju Ramesh Agarwal 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal बिधम 9A, Residences Building, Chamber, Lalbaug, 9Th Floor, Bomanji Petit Maharashtra-400012 Marg, Cumballa Hill, Maharashtra-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaadpa6671L Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Mr. AshutoshFor Respondent: Shri R. r. Makwana

Section 250Section 54

…the developer/builder only on 16-9-2015. The possession was given to the assessee on 16-11-2015 and both these dates fall within the prescribed period as above. b. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain [1994] 75 Taxman 145/[1996] 217 ITR 363 has dealt with this issue. The facts of the case of Smt. Beena Jain are similar to the assessee's case and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court case has upheld the ITAT's order by holding that the relevant date of purchase for computation of deduction u/s 54 was the date when the assessee obtained possession of the flat. P a g e | 6 A.Y. 2016-17 Manju…

MAYURA MOHTA,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1953/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee

Section 54Section 54F

…ithin one year from the date of transfer of old property. In our opinion, the assessee has rightly made the claim u/s 54F of the Act. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain(1996) 217 ITR 363 (BOM) on 23.11.1993 (Bombay), the relevant Para of the decision is extracted below:- Mayura Mohta; A.Y. 2017-18 “2. Under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, in the case of an assessee if any capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house, and the assessee has, within a period of one year before…

RAMDAS SITARAM PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 621/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Vs. Acit, 238/2, Atharva Estate, Central Circle, E-Ward, Tarabai Park – 416 003 Kolhapur Kolhapur, Maharashtra Pan : Agupp5765D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…e is no bar under law to claim deductions 54/54F simultaneously in respect of one new residential property. 8. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR filed submissions placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Beena Jain Vs. CIT 217 ITR 363 (Bom.), submits that the construction of Bungalow was already done and completion certificate was obtained from Kolhapur Municipal Corporation on 28.02.2014. He further submits that substantial payment of Rs.90,00,000/- in cash was made on 19.12.2014. He further submits that in view of the statement u/s.132(4), goes to prove that the property was…

RITA SUNIL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash–

Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM The Income Tax Officer(IT) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/o Vimal Punimiya & Room no. 1708, CO.,501, 17th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. HVNPS5321F The Income Tax Officer(IT) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/o Vimal Punimiya & Room no. 1708, CO.,501, 17th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. DJGPS8073B : Sh…

SUNIL AMRITLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4069/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash–

Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 234ASection 54

…fain vs. ITO 15(1)(2), Mumbai in IT A No. 2896/Mum/2014 dated 08.06.2016 (Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai) (CLC Page No. 1-8). • Reji Easow vs. ITO, Ward 3(5), Thane in ITA No. 1557/Mum/2020 (Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai) (CLC Page No. 9-14) • CIT vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain, (1996) 217 ITR 363 (Hon'ble Bombay High Court) (CLC Page No. 15- 16). Ld. CIT (A) made the following adverse observations (para 10.2 of page 25 of the appellate order): - a) The Maintenance charges become applicable only after the expiry of one year (defect liability period) from the completion of the construction/project. Almost 85% of the Total amount was paid b…

ANIL PREMCHAND MOTIRAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, THANE , THANE

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

ITA 3017/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Pratap N. Sharma

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.3017/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 2016–17) Shri Anil Premchand Motiramani Shop no.1 & 2, Bhairav Shrushti 150 Feet Road, Opp. Dhanalaxmi Bank ……………. Appellant Bhyander West, Mumbai 401 101 PAN – AABPM5785B v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2, Thane Assessee by : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue by : Shri Pratap N. Sharma Date of Hearing – 01/06/2023 Date of Order – 06/06/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The pres…

OM PRAKASH MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 30(5), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6902/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 143(2)Section 54

…r of possession would be date of purchase, since right over the property passed on the day of handing over of possession. Our view is also supported by the ratio of decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain [ (1996) 217 ITR 363], approving the view taken by co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, by observing as under: “Under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, in the case of an assessee if any capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house, and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two years after the d…

SHRI. UDAY RAJARAM LAD,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE-20 (3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6735/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bleshri Uday Rajaram Lad V. Acit – Circle – 20(3) 5Th Floor, Rajaram Estate Room No. 614 Dadasaheb Phalke Road Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Dadar (E), Mumbai – 400014 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aabpl7095H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tikekar Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TikekarFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 45Section 54

…nt should take either the date of purchase agreement for both sale and purchase or date of possession. He cannot pick and choose as per his convenience. The appellant has also relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Beena K Jain, 217 ITR 363 (BOM). The Ld. AO had already distinguished the facts of the case relied upon by the appellant in the assessment order at page no. 7. The other case laws relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on facts. From the details filed by the appellant and discussed by the Ld. AO at page 7 and 8 of the assessment order, it is evident that the pur…

SHRI REJI EASOW ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 3(5), THANE, THANE

In the result, this appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1557/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 250Section 54

…eration for purchase, it can be said that the Assessee has, on the date of taking such possession, purchased the property for the purpose of Section 54 of the Act as has been held by the jurisdiction High Court in that the case of CIT vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain : 217 ITR 363. While examining the issue in respect of Section 54F of the Act the Hon’ble High Court held that for the purpose of determining the date of purchase of new residential house the relevant date in the date when the petitioner paid the full consideration amount on the flat becoming ready for occupation and obtained possession of the flat. The releva…

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

For Appellant: Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

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

…e year window after the date of sale of the original asset would not debar the assessee from claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. Our decision is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs Beena K Jain reported in 217 ITR 363 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under: “2. Under section 54F in the case of an assessee if any capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two year after the date of which the transfer took place purchased a residential h…

ACIT 25 (3), MUMBAI vs. MOHAN PRABHAKAR BHIDE, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1043/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…esidential house in India (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say...." It has been held in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Beena K Jain 217 ITR 363 (Bom) ITA No 2896/Mum/2014, the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the relevant date in this connection is, when the petitioner has paid the full consideration amount on the flat becoming ready for occupation and obtained possession of the flat. This has been taken by the Tribunal as the date of purchase. The Hon'ble Tribunal has looked at the substa…

PRAKASH PANDHARINATH BAKRE,INDORE vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…The legal position which allows the assessee to claim the benefit is very much clear from the plain language of the section 54. Further, 5 Prakash Pandharinath Bakre, Jaipur Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Beena K Jain- [1996] 217 ITR 363, Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Sunil Shiv Khanna – ITA No. 5857/Mum/2016 and Ranjana R. Deshmukh – ITA No. 697/Mum/2017 squarely cover the case of the assessee in his favour. Thus, ld. AO adopted the only view possible or at worst one of the plausible view. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Max…

PINKCITY JEWELHOUSE PVT LTD. 76, DHULESHWAR GARDEN, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3