How many judgments cite CIT v. Smt. Brinda Kumari?

13 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Smt. Brinda Kumari (253 ITR 343), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Smt. Brinda Kumari come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 54F, Section 133(6), Section 143(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3).

CIT v. Smt. Brinda Kumari

253 ITR 343High Court2002#8643 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. Brinda Kumari authority for?

Giving an advance to a builder for the construction of a house is considered equivalent to construction for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 54F.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. Brinda Kumari · section 54F · capital gains exemption · advance to builder · construction of house · long term capital asset · transfer

Also reported as

114 Taxmann 266

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 54F Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69B

Issues it is cited on

section 54f section 54 long term capital gain transfer prescribed section 14 section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Brinda Kumari

Avichal Kulshrestha, London vs. ITO Ward 35(7), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1580/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 54FSection 69B

…from the purchased/ registered date of transfer of long term capital asset. within two years from the date of transfer of For this proposition reliance is hereby placed the original asset. on the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Brinda Kumari (253 ITR 343), 7 judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bharti Mishra (222 Taxman 2), order of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in ACIT vs. Vineet Kumar Kapila (ITA 6868/Del/2015) and judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. Akshay Sobti & Others (423 ITR 321). Without prejudice: Builder/developer had offered possession of the FLAT to assessee, vi…

Subhash Chand Kasera, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 47(1), New Delhi

Ground of Appeal 2 and 3 are dismissed

ITA 4092/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4092/Del/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Subhash Chand Kasera Vs. ITO 2114, Khari Baoli, New Ward-47(1) Delhi- 110006 New Delhi PAN No.AAPSK0044J Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 22/04/2024 Date of 30/04/2024 Pronouncement ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed at the behest of the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the CIT(A)- 16, New Delhi arising out o…

Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 435/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 54

…land, and incurred expenses for development of land and construction of property. Intention of the assessee was to investment money in a residential unit to avail exemption u/s 54. Delhi High Court has observed in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Brinda Kumari [2022] 253 ITR 343 that “giving advance to Builder for construction is equivalent to construction” During the course of assessment proceedings all relevant details have been furnished in respect of subject matter and after considering all documents the Assessing Officer has allowed the deduction; only deduction of construction amount of Rs.17,81,713/- has not been…

Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC-1(4), Kolkata

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

ITA 1209/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 234ASection 53ASection 54

…mt. Sunder Kaur Sujan Gadh (2005) 3 SOT 206 (Mumbai). (iii) Sri Ved Prakash Rakhra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1), Bangalore (ITAT). (iv) Mrs. Jyoti Arun Kothari Vs. ITO [(TS-737-ITAT-2013 (Mumbai)) (v) CIT vs. Smt. Brinda Kumari (2001) 114 Taxmann 266 (Del.) (vi) CIT vs. Kuldeep Singh (2014) 49 taxmann.com 167 (Del.) (vii) Farida A Dungurpurwala vs. ITO (2014) 52 taxmann.com 277 (Mumbai Tribunal) The moot question is whether the agreement with builder to purchase a flat that is going to be constructed, is the case of purchase or construction. In this regard, Hon’ble Court of Mumbai, in the…

Mr.M.George Joseph vs. Dy.Commissioner of Incomet Tax Officer

In the result, order of the

ITA/238/2015HC Karnataka12 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54F

…oresaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'BAJAJ TEMPO LTD. VS. CIT', (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC), 'CIT VS. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.', (1994) 196 ITR 149 6 (SC) and decisions in 'CIT VS. SMT. BRINDA KUMARI', (2002) 253 ITR 343 (DEL.), 'CIT VS. MRS. HILLA J.B.WADIA', (1995) 216 ITR 376 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. SAMBANDAM UDAYKUMR', (2012) 345 ITR 389 and 'CIT VS. SADARMAL KOTHARI', (2008) 302 ITR 286 (MAD.). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that all the authorities under the Act have held that assessee has not satisfied the conditions pres…

Sri. Haider Noman Khorakiwala, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 2367/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54Section 54F

…th a builder is a case of construction and not purchase of residential flat and therefore time limit period of 3 years is application. In this context, learned AR relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Bindra Kumar, reported in 253 ITR 343. In so far as the second observation of the learned AO that the assessee has not deposited capital gains amount in capital gains accounts scheme before the date of furnishing of the return under section 139 of the Act, it was submitted that assessee has expended the entire consideration of Rs.12,33,200/- within the period of 3 years from the date…

Kusumlata Sonthalia, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1151/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1151/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri RadheyShyam, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 54Section 54F

…5(3) Smt. Sunder Kaur ii) Sujan Singh Gadh [2005] 3 SOT206 (Mumbai) Sri Ved Prakash Rakhra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, iii) Circle-6(1), Bangalore (ITAT) iv) Mrs. Jyoti Arun Kothari VITO, (TS-737-ITAT-2014(Mum) v) CIT V Smt. Brinda Kumari (2001) 114 Taxmann 266(Del.) vi) CIT v Kuldeep Singh (2014) 49 Taxmann.com 167 (Del.) vii) Farida A Dungurpurwala v ITO (2014) 52 Taxmann.com 227 (Mum. Tribunal) In the above cases, the competent courts have held that the flates constructed by the private developers are also covered by Circular 471 & 672 and, therefore, entitled for deduction u/s 54. The most quest…

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

…der section 54 is genuinely claimed by him and therefore, disallowance made under section 54 amounting to ... may be deleted” 3.6. Assessee also places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Brinda Kumari [2002] 253 ITR 343 (Delhi), wherein it was observed as under: “4. We find substance in the assessee’s stand. The Tribunal has, inter alia, recorded a positive finding in the following terms: “In the present case on the facts there is no dispute that the late Maharani advanced a sum of Rs. 5,25,000 for the specific purpose of construction offlats for her on t…

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

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

ITO 31(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pravin Chand Sehgal (HUF), Mumbai

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 3416/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 54

…authorities. Similarly, in the case of Sanjeev Lal vs. CIT 365 ITR 389 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a sale deed may not be essential if the transfer can be deduced from the facts of the case. Similarly, in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Brinda Kumari (2001) 114 Taxmann 266 it has been held that when an allotment letter wherein it has been held that where the assessee acquired a substantial domain over a flat in a housing society under agreement with society coupled with payment of almost entire cost of construction within a period of 2 years from date when assessee conveyed original property to society, assesse…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Yashodhar Kumar Jain, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee as well as

ITA 1697/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 40Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Yashodhar Kumar Jain, vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 221, Kailash Hills, Circle 23(1), New Delhi New Delhi (PAN:AAPPJ6527Q) AND Assessment Year: 2008-09 ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), vs. Yoshodhar Kumar Jain, ROOM NO. 190, CR BLDG., 221, Kailash Hills, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI New Delhi (PAN:AAPPJ6527Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : None Department by: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16-05-2016 Date of Order : 03-06-2016 ORDER…

Yashodhar Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee as well as

ITA 1449/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 40Section 54