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

Pankaj Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 148/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Dr.K.Shivram & Shri Rahul KFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई "ायपीठ ‘सी ’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी आर. सी. शमा", लेखा सद", एवं "ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद", के सम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.148/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बनाम/ Shri Pankaj Khandelwal Income Tax Officer 8(2)(1) C/o. INI Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Vs. B-202, Universal Business Park, Off Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali Mumbai - 400057 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AHYPK4370L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Dr.K.Shivram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani D…

ITO 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajiv Bholanath Gupta, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-7(2)(1), Shri Rajiv Bholanath Gupta, Room No.621A, 6Th Floor, 1103, Raheja Acropolis, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Atlantic Deonar Chembur, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400088 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabpg9848F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Jignes Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr

Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"नी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO-7(2)(1), Shri Rajiv Bholanath Gupta, Room No.621A, 6th Floor, 1103, Raheja Acropolis, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Atlantic Deonar Chembur, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400088 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.AABPG9848F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Jignes Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri B.S. Bist-D…

Narendra K Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7742/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm Shri Narendra K. Sheth Ajit Auto Enterprise 25 A.G. Street Appellant Mumbai 400004 Vs. Income Tax Officer-5(1)-1 Respondent Mumbai Pan - Aafps5384Q Appellant By: Shri S.C. Tiwari Respondent By: Dr. Sandeep Goel Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2016

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Sandeep Goel
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…enied the benefit of exemption under section 54F of the Act for investing the sale consideration in purchase of new residential flat. For this, the CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain (1996) 217 ITR 363 (Bom.). Aggrieved by the action of the CIT(A), assessee now is in second appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Before us the learned counsel of the assessee stated that the assessee has purchased shop No. 19, Brahma. CBD Belapur by an agreement dated 19.07.1993…

Sushil Satpal Mehra- Legal Heir Late Smt Shukla Mhera, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(3) (3)

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

ITA 3895/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.3895/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम/ Shri Sushil Satpal Mehra- The Ito-20(3)(3), Legal Heir Mumbai Vs. Late Smt. Shukla Satpal Mehra, 1003-5, Valencia, Flat No. 8/5, Sundervan, Off Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aknpm 0258R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shrinishit Gandhi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :01.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :10.02.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-31, Mumbai Dated 26.2.2010 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The Only Issue In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Claim U/S. 54 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: ShriNishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 256(2)Section 54Section 54F

…he possession was taken on 11.12.2003 which is within one year from the date of sale of old house, the deduction u/s. 54 of the Act has to be allowed. Placing reliance on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Beena K. Jain ( 217 ITR 363) Ld. Counsel submits that the Jurisdictional High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal in holding that the assessee was entitled the benefit of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act as the relevant date was the day when the assessee paid the full consideration on the flat becoming ready for occupation and obtained possession of the flat. Therefore, h…