CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain

217 ITR 363High Court1996#2677 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.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 54Section 54FSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 234BSection 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)long-term capital assetpurposive interpretationsection 54findexed cost of acquisitiondate of transfersection 54section 2(47)section 45long term capital gainlong term capital gainsfair market value

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain

Ashok Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, Sr. D.R
Section 139(5)Section 54

…18.08.2011 to 18.08.2013) and thus the assessee is entitled for the benefit of section 54F of the Act. 4.11 The Tribunal in the case of Ayushi Patni (supra) after following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Beena Jain, 217 ITR 363, treated the date of the taking possession as the date of the purchase of the flat and allowed benefit of section 54F of the Act observing as under: “6. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have also perused the decisions on which the ld. A.R. has placed reliance. The solitary iss…

Monika Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 1501/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 54

…us such case may be treated as the construction of the flat for the purpose of section 54 and 54F of the Act. The Tribunal in the case of Ayushi Patni (supra) after following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Beena Jain, 217 ITR 363, treated the date of the taking possession as the date of the purchase of the flat and allowed benefit of section 54F of the Act, observing as under: “6. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have also perused the decisions on which the ld. A.R. has placed reliance. The solitary is…

Rajiv Madhok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2291/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 45Section 54F

…n 18.08.2011 to 18.08.2013) and thus the assessee is entitled for the benefit of section 54F of the Act. 4.11 The Tribunal in the case of Ayushi Patni (supra) after following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Beena Jain, 217 ITR 363, treated the date of the taking possession as the date of the purchase of the flat and allowed benefit of section 54F of the Act observing as under: “6. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have also perused the decisions on which the ld. A.R. has placed reliance. The solitary iss…

Smt. Ranjana Sharma (Sikhwal), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 32(4), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1157/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 54F

…bench’s decision in Income Tax Officer (International Taxation) 3(1)(1) Mumbai vs. Shri Sunil Shiv Khanna ITA No.5857/Mum/2016 decided on 14.05.2018 takes note of hon'ble Bombay high court’s judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain (1996) 217 ITR 363 (Bom) that the clinching aspect in such a case is the date of possession and payment of balance consideration only. Learned CIT DR fails to dispute that going by the relevant details forming part of case record, the clinching fact herein of assessee’s conveyance deed registered on 03.08.2011 and agreement to sell alongwith possession on 15.06.201…

Mihir Madhavrao Suryawanshi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 313/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri M.R. ShirudeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 54F

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.313/PUN/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mihir Madhavrao Suryawanshi, Flat No. 7, Gujarat Colony, Paud Road, Kothrud, Pune – 411029 PAN : AHYPS3597B .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 11(2), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri M.R. Shirude Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 27-11-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date…

Shri. Mangilal Ranka, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2709/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri Mangilal Ranka V. Income Tax Officer – 5(3)(1) A/1301, Pratiksha Tower, Room No. 21, 3Rd Floor, R.S. Nimkar Marg, B Wing, Mittal Court, Mumbai – 400 008 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aacpr 1121 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satish Modi Department By : Shri Nishant Samaiya

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya
Section 143(3)Section 54

…rchase agreement being 24.12.2007 and denied the exemption claimed by the assessee. 3 Shri Mangilal Ranka 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt Beena K. Jain [217 ITR 363] and also the decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Bastimal K. Jain v. ITO in ITA.No. 2896/Mum/2014 dated 08.06.2016 and also the decision in the case of Smt Ramita Mahendra Mehta v. ITO in ITA.No. 4535/Mum/2014 dated 13.09.2017 wherein it has been held that the date of final occupation of the property should be considered for the purpose…

Shri Dashrath Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 296/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 296/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Dashrath Ambalal Patel, Ito, बनाम/ 9, Jashwant Society, Ward – 7(2), Vs. Jodhpur Char Rasta, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad – 380 015. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akypp 5852 G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Mehul Talera, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Mehul Talera, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N. J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 54Section 54F

…lh* अहमदाबाद । आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘,l ,l ,l-,e ,l ,e ,e-lh ,e lhlh IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD LoZJh LoZJh egkohj LoZJh LoZJh egkohj egkohj izlkn] U; egkohj izlkn] U; izlkn] U;kfkfkfkf;d lnL; , izlkn] U; ;d lnL; , ;d lnL; ,oaoaoaoa olhe ;d lnL; , olhe olhe vgen] ys[kk lnL; ds le{kA olhe vgen] ys[kk lnL; ds le{kA vgen] ys[kk lnL; ds le{kA vgen] ys[kk lnL; ds le{kA BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 296/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Dashrath Ambalal Patel, ITO, बनाम/ 9…

Vijay Rangroo, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3063/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Milind Bakhai (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgutra (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54

…flat for approximately seven years, he was entitled to adjustment of long-term capital gains under section 54 of the Act in respect of the property purchased by him. Learned counsel for the revenue, with the aid of judgment in CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain[1996] 217 ITR 363 (Bom.) supported the order of the Tribunal. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find force in the submission of learned counsel for the assessee. 10. Before delving on the controversy involved herein, it would be apposite to refer to relevant statutory provisions. 11. Section 2(14) defines capital asset. Under s…

ACIT, Cir.- 17(1), Mumbai vs. Abhay Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4983/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Gubgutra (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajen Damani (DR)
Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE, SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT Circle-17(2) Shri Abhay Ramesh Kumar Room No. 117, 1st Floor, Agarwal, Flat No.15, Vijaymahal Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. D Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAAPA7909A Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rajiv Gubgutra (DR) Respondent by : Shri Rajen Damani (DR) Date of Hearing : 28.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2018 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by Revenue under Section 253 of…

ITO (International Taxation) - 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sunil Shiv Khanna, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5857/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh V. Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, D.R
Section 54

…e, the same is within one year prior to the date of sale and therefore the assessee is clearly entitled for exemption under section 54 of the Act. The assessee in defense of his argument relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain [1996] 217 ITR 363 (Bom) 2. Bastimal K. Jain vs. ITO in ITA No.2896/M/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 order dated 08.06.2016 3. V.M. Dujodwala vs. ITO 1991 36 ITD 130 Mum The Ld. A.R. finally submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court and the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal the appeal of the Revenue deserved to be dismissed. 8. We ha…

DCIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. Poonam Anil Dalmia, Mumbai

ITA 3471/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrig. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3471/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar P. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…Wadia 216 ITR 276 that if a substantial amount has been paid within the relevant period then the benefit of sec. 54 will be relevant. Similar view has been expressed by the Bombay High Court in the context of sec. 54F in the case of CIT Vrs. Smt. Bina K. Jain 217 ITR 363. It has been held in the case of CIT Vrs. Smt B. S. Shanthakumari (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 74(Karnataka) that once it is established by the assessee that he was invested entire net consideration in construction of residential house within the stipulated period it would meet requirement of sec. 54F and the assessee would be entitled to get benefit of…

ACIT 21(2), Mumbai vs. Michelle N. Sanghvi, Mumbai

ITA 3973/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumaracit, Circle - 21(2) Shri Michelle N. Sanghvi Room No. 115, 1St Floor 402, Kewal Indl. Estate Piramal Chambers Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg Parel, Mumbai 400012 Lower Parel Mumbai 400013 Pan – Arsps1466M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Omi NingeshenFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Sagar
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

…right of the assessee prior to 15.05.1986 under the letter of allotment were rights in the property that were transferred. The Court also relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Ved Prakash & Sons. (HUF) 207 ITR 148 (P & H) and CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain 217 ITR 363 (Bom.). The Court upheld the contention of the assessee that for the purpose of s. 2(14) and s. 2(42A) what was relevant was the holding of the property as signified by the term 'held' used in both the provisions and not the ownership of the property which was distinct and different. For the purpose of an asset to be treated as a long term capita…

Abhay R. Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3718/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Abhay R. Aggarwal, The Commissioner Of Flat No.15, Vijay Mahal, Income Tax (Appeals)-28, D Road, Vs. Mumbai Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan: Aaapa7909A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajen J. Damani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajen J. Damani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, D.R
Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Abhay R. Aggarwal, The Commissioner of Flat No.15, Vijay Mahal, Income Tax (Appeals)-28, D Road, Vs. Mumbai Churchgate, Mumbai- 400 020 PAN: AAAPA7909A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Rajen J. Damani, A.R. Revenue by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2018 O R D E R Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against…

Sri Moiz Shabbir Vadnagenwala, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 272/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Respondent: Mr.M.Palanichamy, JCIT
Section 54F

…t the registration of handing over of the said new flat was within a period of two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset and consequently in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Beena K. Jain reported in 217 ITR 363, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Sec.54F. :- 3 -: 4. In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the order of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Beena K. Jain referred to supra, the Hon’ble High Court has hel…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Raminder Singh Narang, New Delhi

In the result appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4461/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Raminder Singh Narang, Circle-38(1), C/O. Romana Herbal Care Pvt. New Delhi Ltd, E-43, Flatted Factory Complex, Jhandewalan, New Delhi Pan:Aacpn5607L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri GS Kholi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

…/05/2007. Therefore actual property was purchased only on 18/5/2007, i.e. the date on which the assessee was entered in to the register of ownership and possession was given to the assessee. The Honorable Bombay high court in case of CIT V Mrs. Beena K Jain [ 217 ITR 363] has held that :- " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing exemption of Rs. 11,04,423 under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, considering the date of 6 ACIT V Raminder Singh Narang A Y 2009-10 possession of the new residential premises instead of the date of sale agreement and the d…

Ramita Mahendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4535/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Purushotam Kumar
Section 54

…th the view of the Assessing Officer. 4. The Learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before lower authorities. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain [217 ITR 363] and submits that the date of possession of new residential premises is to be considered as date of acquisition instead of the date of sale agreement or the date of registration. The Learned Counsel for the assessee further submits that following this decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Coordinate Bench on the similar circumsta…

Nitin Radheshyam Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(2)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1399/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhnitin Radheshyam Agarwal, Acit -21(2), Royal I Estate, Unit No.B-34, Room No. 115, First Floor, 4Th Floor, Naigaon Cross Road, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Wadala, Mumbai-400031. Mumbai-400012. Pan: Aacpa5030G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 253Section 254(1)Section 54

…e assessee paid full consideration of flat being ready for occupation and obtained the possession. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee ITA No. 1399/M/2017- Nitin Radheshyam Agarwal relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain 217 ITR 363 (Bom. High Court), V.M. Dujodwala vs. ITO 36 ITD 130 (Bom.), Purushootam Govind Bhatt vs. FITO 13 ITD 393 (Bom.), Bastimal K. Jain vs. ITO (ITA No. 2896/M/2014 dated 08.06.2016), Sandeep N. Panchamia vs. ITO (ITA No. 5281/M/2013 dated 17.12.2014), Sunil Datwani vs. ITO (ITA No. 1775/M/2008 dated 22.09.2010), ITO vs. Zebun A. Rangawala (ITA No. 20…

Sangeeta Ashok Saluja, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1161/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainmrs. Sangeeta Ashok Saluja, फनाभ/ Ito-Ward 23(1)-4, C/O. M/S. Fair Trading Mumbai. Vs. Company, Shop No.2, Burjour Baug, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup (W), Mumbai – 400 078. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aarps9299N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram & Mr. RahulFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri & Ms. Arju
Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

…thrusting on the assessee, the date of possession (ie 22.10.2007), AO denied the said benefits. 3. Before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain [1996] 217 ITR 363 (Bom.) (HC) and submitted that an identical issue came up for adjudication before the said High Court and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee. Para 2 of the said judgment is relevant in this regard. 4. After hearing both the parties on this issue, we find that the question raised before the Hon’ble High Court and the decision given…

The DCIT, Ratlam vs. Shri Anil Jhalani, Ratlam

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the cross

ITA 246/IND/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 148Section 2(47)(V)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…een held that appellant can make the investment in the specified assets for the purpose of section 54EA, 54EB and 54EC with in six month from date of consideration received. v. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Beena K. Jqain (1994) 75 Taxmann 145 held that section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains Exemption – In case of investment in residential house Assessee sold office premises on 23.7.1987 which resulted in long term capital gain ofRs.24,05,050/- - Prior to this assessee had entered into an agreement dated 4.9.1985 for purchase of a residential flat for a total…

Farid Sabuwala, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 20(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is allowed and that of assessee is dismissed

ITA 171/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

…ITA No.1523/Mum/2014 Shri Fazal Alauddin Sabuwala Shri Farid Sabuwala Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एफ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह ,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1523/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) ACIT-20(3) Vs. SHRIFAZAL ALAUDDIN Room No. 506 SABUWALA 5th Floor, Piramal Chamber Premier House, Plot No. 38, Parel Phase – II, Chakala MIDC, Mumbai 400012 Andheri (East) Mumbai-93 & 122, Santosh Tower, Lo…