How many judgments cite CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Cal)?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Cal) (244 ITR 352), spanning 2014 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Cal) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54, Section 143(3), Section 139, Section 2(47), Section 234B, Section 53A.

CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Cal)

244 ITR 352High Court2000#4382 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Cal) authority for?

An assessee is entitled to a deduction under section 54 if substantial steps have been taken towards acquiring a new residential property, even if the sale deed has not yet been executed, provided the intention to purchase and invest is evident.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari · section 54 · deduction · capital gain · new residential property · substantial investment · sale deed · purchase · date of transfer · section 2(47)

Sections most often in play

Section 54 Section 143(3)Section 139 Section 2(47)Section 234B Section 53A Section 136 Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)purposive interpretation long-term capital asset section 53a section 53 date of transfer section 54 section 54f section 45 long term capital gain section 139 section 139(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Cal)

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9321/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53ASection 54

…" 5 5.4 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court further referred to the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Varma Vs. CIT (224 ITR 106(M.P)) and that of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (244 ITR 352(Cal))} and opined that when substantial investment was made in the new property, it should be deemed that sufficient steps had been taken and it would satisfy the requirements of section 54 of the Act. As per the Hon'ble High Court, the basic purpose behind section 54 of the Act is to ensure that the assessee is not taxed on the capital gain, if…

DCIT., (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALI REDDY, HYDERABAD

ITA 366/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 54Section 54F

…ff as expenses incurred in relation to the sale deed\nwhich was executed.\n10. More direct are the two decisions of Madhya Pradesh High Court\nin Shashi Verma (Smt.) vs. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106 and Calcutta High\nCourt in CIT vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (2000) 244 ITR 352. In Shashi\nVerma (supra), the assessee had invested the sale consideration for\npurchase of a flat from Delhi Development Authority and had paid part\ninstallments. Reversing the decision of the Tribunal and allowing the\nappeal of the assessee, the High Court observed that the Tribunal had\nadopted a pedantic approach without noticing the fact…

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

…he following judicial precedents: ➤ 196 ITR 188, Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supreme Court). ➤196 ITR 149, CIT Vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Co. Ltd. (Supreme Court). ➤ 156 ITR 323 CIT vs. J.H. Gotla (Supreme Court). ➤ 365 ITR 389, Sanjeev Lal vs CIT (Supreme Court). ➤244 ITR 352. CIT vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Calcutta H.C.). Thus, viewed from whatever angle, the Assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs.2,81,58,300 u/s 54 of the Act because at the time of entering into Agreement to Sell dated 30/07/2020 with the Seller, the Assessee had paid the entire consideration amount of Rs.2,81,58,300 14 ACIT v. Prem Sapra A.Y.…

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…Jurisdictional Bench of ITAT as well as other Co-ordinate Bench and Hon'ble High Courts as under: i. Ms. Madhu Kaul v. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 417/225 Taxman 86/363 ITR 54 (Punj. & Har.). ii. CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari [2001] 117 Taxman 538/ [2000] 244 ITR 352/160 CTR 0165 (Cal. HC). iii. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (supra). iv. CIT v. Manjula J. Shah [2011] 16 taxmann.com 42/ [2012] 204 Taxman 691/ [2013] 355 ITR 474 (Bom.). v. Mrs. Seema Sabharwal v. ITO [2018] 91 taxmann.com 2/169 ITD 319 (Chd. - Trib.). vi. Rajendra Pal Verma v. Asstt. CIT [2019] 104 taxmann.com 303/176 ITD 211 (Mum. - Trib.). v…

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & DR KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1449/CHD/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The ACIT, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: ABKPS1560N अपीलाथ"/ APPELLANT ""यथ"/ REPSONDENT (HYBRID MODE ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई क"…

SHEELA RAMCHAND UTTAMCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-30(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3398/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54

…No.471 dated 15/10/1986 and Circular No.672 dated 16/12/1993, held that booking of a flat with a builder is to be considered as construction of the residential flat and not a purchase of a residential flat. Further, in CIT v/s Smt. Bharati C. Kothari, [2000] 244 ITR 352 (Cal.), the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court after analyzing the provisions of section 54 of the Act, observed as under: Sheela Ramchand Uttamchandani “The purpose behind the exemption under section 54(1) is that if any assessee sells his residential house and purchases a new house against those sale considerations, then capital gain tax arising out o…

PRANAV BHAWNATH JHA,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(1)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3464/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhpranav Bhawnath Jha Vs. Int. Tax Ward 3(1)(1) A-1103, Lokhandwala Air India Building, Residency, L Papan Marg Mumbai Maharashtra – 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abupj5391G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Digesh RambhiaFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 54

…judicial pronouncements: I. Mustansir I Tehsildar v. ITO [2017] 88 taxmann.com 275 (Mumbai - Trib.) II. CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 571 (Kar.) III. CIT v. Bharti Mishra [2014] 41 taxmann.com 50 (Delhi) IV. CIT v. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (2000) 244 ITR 352 V. CIT v. H.K. Kapoor [1998] 234 ITR 753 (AII.) VI. Asstt.CIT v. Subhash Sevaram Bhavnani [2012] 23 taxmann.com 94 (Ahm. Tri.) The ld. Counsel also contended that the date of construction of the property was relevant not the date of commencement of the property in the case of the assessee. P a g e | 4 Pranav Bhawnath Jha Vs. Int. Tax Ward 3(1)(1…

INDUMATI CHINTAKUNTALA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 2033/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER निर्धारण आ.अपी.सं / अपीलार्थीर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / वर्ष / A.Y. ITA No. Appellant Respondent Smt. Indumati Chintakuntala 1560/Hyd/2018 2013-14 L/R of Late Diwakar Reddy Chintakuntala Income Tax Hyderabad Officer, [PAN No. ABBPC4708P] Ward-4(3), Hyderabad Smt. Indumati 2033/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Chintakuntala Hyderabad [PAN No. AELPC9844B] निर्धारितीती द्वारा /Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा /Revenue…

DIWAKAR REDDY CHINTAKUNTALA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1560/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 54

MAHARSHI GOGINENI ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1644/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR

Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 1644/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Maharshi Gogineni, Assistant Commissioner of Hyderabad Vs. Income Tax, [PAN No. ADGPG7180E] Circle-14(1), Hyderabad अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारितीती द्वारा /Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा Shri Kumar Aditya, DR /Revenue by: सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date of hearing: 26/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीखर…

DCIT-1, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALIREDDY, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 325/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA.No.325/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Smt. Syama Reddy Income Tax – 1, Malireddy, (International Taxation), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AEYPM9330D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.A. Revenue by: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy Date of hearing: 15.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. The captioned appeal is filed by the Revenue, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by…

CHANDER KANTA MAHESHWARI L/H OF LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assesseeis allowed

ITA 448/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr.D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54(1)

…of CIT Vs. R. L. Sood 245 ITR 727 (Del.), the benefit under Section 54 (1) shall be available where substantial amount has been made for purchase of new house and as per judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Bharti C. Kothari 244 ITR 352 (Cal.) deduction under Section 54 shall be available where payment for new flat has been made within period of three years from the date of sale of flat, howeverthe claim of the Assessee was denied by the Assessing Officer on the groundsthat the Assessee has filed his return of income on 29th March, 2014 i.e. after due date of filing of return of…

MRS. KAMAL MURLIDHAR MOKASHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…was under construction and when the substantial consideration was paid within two years, the deduction u/s 54F of the Act is to be allowed in respect of the entire cost of the new flat, he relied on the following decisions : i) CIT Vs. Bharati C. Kothari [244 ITR 352 (Cal)] ii) CIT Vs. J.B. Hilla Wadia [216 ITR 376 (Bom)]. iii) Shashi Verma Vs. CIT [224 ITR 106 (MP)]. Ld.A.R. further submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in a recent decision in the case of PCIT Vs. Vembu Vaidyanath in ITA No.1459/2016 dated 22.01.2019 has held that the date of allotment be considered to be the date on which the pu…

ANAND JITENDRA SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 18(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 5369/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anand Jitendra Shah, The Assistant Commissioner Of Sdc Exports, 122A, Dutta Income Tax- 18(1), Manditr Compound, Thakurdwar Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Road, Vs. Ernest House, Mumbai - 400002 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 4000021 Pan: Anqps6808R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Apurva M. Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore & Chaitanya Anjaria (Drs) Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri Apurva M. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 50CSection 54F

…ed.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Varma vs. CIT, 224 ITR 106(M.P) and that of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Cal) 244 ITR 352 and opined that when substantial investment was made in the new property, it should be deemed that sufficient steps had been taken and it would satisfy the requirements of section 54 of the Act. As per the Hon’ble High Court, the basic purpose behind section 54 of the Act is to ensure that the assessee is not taxed on the capital gain, if he repl…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5899/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), Vs. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI 3B/7, NEA, OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ABNPS644B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Assessee by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. Shivansh Pandya, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIHU, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order dated 21/08/2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-17, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2012-13 on the following gr…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 5901/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), Vs. AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI 3B/7, NEA OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ATYPS9496B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), Vs. PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI 3B/7, NEA OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ABXPS9866N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Assessee by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. Shivansh Pandya, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIHU,…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

ITA 5900/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), Vs. AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI 3B/7, NEA OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ATYPS9496B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), Vs. PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI 3B/7, NEA OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI – 110 060 (PAN: ABXPS9866N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Assessee by Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Sh. Shivansh Pandya, Adv. ORDER PER H.S. SIHU,…

HEMDENDRA K. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1017/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 14ASection 54Section 54ESection 54F

…ed.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court further referred to the decision o Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Varma vs. CIT, 224 ITR 106(M.P) and that of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Cal) 244 ITR 352 and opined that when substantial investment was made in the new property, it should be deemed that sufficient steps had been taken and it would satisfy the requirements of section 54 of the Act. As per the Hon’ble High Court, the basic purpose behind section 54 of the Act is to ensure that the assessee is not taxed on the capital gain, if he repl…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, जी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment 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 Shri C.S. Sharma JCIT-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नध…

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

…Arvind Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46 (SC) that the purchase in the context of sec. 54 should be understood in a liberal sense without any undue restriction limiting the meaning to "lexical legalese". It has been held in the case of CIT vs Smt. BharatCKothari (2000) 244 ITR 352 (CAL) that if the entire amount has been invested within the period of 8 I.T.A. No. 3471/Mum/2016 Poonam Anil Dalmia, three years and theagreement of purchase itself has been made within 2 years the assessee was entitled to exemption. It has been held by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs MrsHilla J.B. Wadia 216 ITR 276 that if a substan…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2