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

244 ITR 352High Court2000#4320 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.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 54Section 143(3)Section 139Section 2(47)Section 234BSection 53ASection 136Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)purposive interpretationlong-term capital assetsection 53asection 53date of transfersection 54section 54fsection 45long term capital gainsection 139section 139(1)

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

ITO 21(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 2247/MUM/2014[2010-1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

…by the Ld. Assessing Officer. On the other hand, Shri N. Jayendran, ld. counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order by placing reliance upon the decision in CIT vs Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia, (1995) 216 ITR 376 (Bom.), CIT vs Smt. Bharti C. Kothari (2000) 244 ITR 352 (Kol.), CIT vs R.L. Sud (2000) 245 ITR 727 (Del.). Our attention was also invited to the agreement dated 29/10/2009 for the purchase of the residential flat (pages 50 to 64 of the paper book) and developers confirmation along with receipt of payments 3 Pritamlal J. Doshi ITA No.1993 & 2247/Mum/2014 received against the purchase of flat (page 65…

Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 1993/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

…by the Ld. Assessing Officer. On the other hand, Shri N. Jayendran, ld. counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order by placing reliance upon the decision in CIT vs Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia, (1995) 216 ITR 376 (Bom.), CIT vs Smt. Bharti C. Kothari (2000) 244 ITR 352 (Kol.), CIT vs R.L. Sud (2000) 245 ITR 727 (Del.). Our attention was also invited to the agreement dated 29/10/2009 for the purchase of the residential flat (pages 50 to 64 of the paper book) and developers confirmation along with receipt of payments 3 Pritamlal J. Doshi ITA No.1993 & 2247/Mum/2014 received against the purchase of flat (page 65…

Seema M. Pillai, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, 19(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 3075/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2011-12) Mrs. Seema M. Pillai Vs. Ito-19(1)(4), Mumbai 94-C, Ruby House, Cst Road, (Respondent) Kalina, Santa Cruz (W), Mumbai 400 029 (Appellant) Pan : Afrpp2491N

For Appellant: Shri Ronak N. SolankiFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh
Section 143(3)Section 54

…at Sec. 54 of the Act speaks of purchase and that registration was not imperative. At the time of hearing, the learned representative for the assessee also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari, 244 ITR 352 (Cal.) to point out that when substantial investment has been made in the new property, it should be deemed that substantial steps have been taken and it would satisfy the requirements of Sec. 54 of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the stand of lower authorities by pointing out that the total conside…

ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavna Y Sanghavi, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-8(3)-1, Smt. Bhavna Y. Sanghavi, Room No.201, 2Nd Floor, A-38, Nandjyot Industrial बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Estate, Kurla Andheri Vs. Mumbai-400020 Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400072 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aapps4898H

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 54

…he assessee. As per the provision of Act, the assessee was either to construct the house or to invest the sale proceeds within the stipulated period of 2/3 years from the date of transfer of asset. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs Bharati C. Kothari (244 ITR 352)(Cal.) held as under:- “ 1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question set out at page 2 of the application, has been referred by the Tribunal for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee…

Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Basanti Jeevanlal Jain, The Income Tax Officer 287, Dharamraj Gully, Ward-14(3)(2), बनाम/ M.J. Market, Earnest House, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Agdpj5258A

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54

…perties Ltd. As per the provision of Act, the assessee was either to construct the house or to invest the sale proceeds within the stipulated period of 2/3 years from the date of transfer of asset. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs Bharati C. Kothari (244 ITR 352)(Cal.) held as under:- “ 1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question set out at page 2 of the application, has been referred by the Tribunal for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee i…

T. Shivakumar, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 323/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, Addl.CIT
Section 54

…off as expenses incurred in relation to the sale deed which was executed. 10. More direct are the two decisions of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shashi Verma (Smt.) vs. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106 and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (2000) 244 ITR 352. In Shashi Verma (supra), the assessee had invested the sale consideration for purchase of a flat from Delhi Development Authority and had paid part installments. Reversing the decision of the Tribunal and allowing the appeal of the assessee, the High Court observed that the Tribunal had adopted a pedantic approach without noticing the fact that…

The Commissioner of Income Tax II

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/117/2014HC Delhi12 Aug 2014
Section 54

…as expenses incurred in relation to the sale deed which was executed. 10. More direct are the two decisions of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shashi Verma (Smt.) vs. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106 and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (2000) 244 ITR 352. In 2014:DHC:3841-DB ITA 117/2014 Page 11 of 14 Shashi Verma (supra), the assessee had invested the sale consideration for purchase of a flat from Delhi Development Authority and had paid part installments. Reversing the decision of the Tribunal and allowing t…