How many judgments cite CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma?

104 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma (331 ITR 211), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54F, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(1), Section 148A(b).

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma

331 ITR 211High Court2011#1050 most cited

What is CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma authority for?

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

104

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma · Section 54 · Section 54F · capital gains exemption · "a residential house" · multiple residential units · Section 13 General Clauses Act · singular plural interpretation · long term capital gain · residential house exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(1)Section 148A(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 13(2)indexed cost of acquisition section 54 section 54f date of transfer section 45 fair market value long term capital gain scrutiny assessment section 13 transfer

Judgments citing CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2086/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मधुसूदन साव"डया, माननीय लेखा सद"य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2086/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Surender Kumar Bhojwani, VS. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Intl. Taxation -1, PAN: AEQPB4090P Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri A V Raghuram, Advocate Assessee Represented by राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR Department…

DHIRAJKUMAR SOHANLAL THUKRAL ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3865/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2013-14 Dhirajkumar Sohanlal Thukral Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 33/34, Garden View Apartment, Tax, Circle 17(1) Mumbai. Road No. 29, Sion (E), (Respondent) Mumbai 400 022. Pan : Aabpt5208Q (Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 54F

…red assessee having constructed ‘a residential’ house in India. The said provision fell for consideration of the Madras High Court in Smt. V.R. Karpagam (supra). The Madras High Court taking note of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT vs K.G. Rukminiamma, 331 ITR 211 (Kar) by referring to Section 13 of the General Clauses Act has, inter alia, held that the word “a” appearing in Section 54F of the Act should not be construed in singular and should be understood in plural. The Madras High Court has reproduced the following observations of Karnataka High Court with approval: “8. Their Lordships has clearly held…

BALUSA VENKATA MURALIKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOMETAX OFFCIER, INTL TAXN, WARD1(2), BANGALORE, KORAMANGALA

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

ITA 252/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 45Section 54F

…t. The claim of the assessee is that the assessee invested in single residential unit and is eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Act on the entire value of the building and relied on judgment on judicial High Court in the case of K. G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 wherein it was held that the phrase “a” residential house would mean “one” residential house is not correct. The expression “a” residential house should be understood in a sense that building should be of residential house in nature and “a” and should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Section 54/54F uses the expression “a residenti…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SH. NARAYANAPPA RAMANNA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 691/BANG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs. Shri Narayanappa Ramanna, Circle – 4(1)(1), 1 B, Narayanapur Village, Bengaluru. K. R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 016. Pan : Afmpr 3833 C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri. Ganesh S, Advocate. Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ganesh S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54F

…ore than one residential unit with effect from 01.04.2015 by replacing word "a" with "one". In this context, it is relevant to mention that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, prior to the amendment, in the case of CIT v. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma reported in 331 ITR 211 had held that "residential unit house", used in section 54 makes it clear that it was not the intention of the legislature to convey the meaning that it refers to a single residential house. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that if that was the intention, they would have used the word "one". As in the earlier part, the words used are buildin…

RAJEEVA RANJAN,MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 52(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1764/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, AssesseeFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 54

…ame building can be construed as a single unit and therefore, exemption u/s 54F can be allowed in respect of these multiple units. The decision was given after relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma [2011] 331 ITR 211/196. The Hon’ble Chennai High Court has further held in this case that, “9. It is relevant to note herein that an amendment made with regard to the word 'a' by the Finance (No. 2) 01.04.2015. The said amendment reads as follows: 5 Rajeev Ranjan '32a. Words "constructed, one residential house in India" shall be substituted for "constructed, a re…

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

ITA 128/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito, Kalra, 1(1), बनाम/ Agar Road, Ujjain Ganesh Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 54F

…so filed copies of certain judicial rulings, namely ACIT Vs. Reshmi P. Loyalka (ITAT-Kolkata) ITA No. 1763/Kol/2016, CIT Vs. Gita Duggal (2013) 357 ITR 153 (Delhi HC), Navin Jolly Vs. ITO (2020) 424 ITR 462 (Karnataka HC), CIT Vs. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka HC), by way of a compilation. Lastly, Ld. AR also submitted that there were three owners (including assessee) in the newly purchased two properties; therefore one can safely conclude that one person is owner of one property only. Ld. AR submitted that the revenue authorities should take a practical and holistic view of assessee’s case…

ZANNATHU FIRDOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTNL. TAXN WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 422/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 422/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Zannathul Firdouse, The Income Tax Officer, Flat C-104, Raheja Regency, V. International Taxation Ward - 147, Santhome High Road, 2(2), R A Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aadpz-6639-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishna, Fca : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishna, FCA

Section 147Section 234Section 234ASection 54F

…, in light of the decisions of various High Courts including the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Smt. V.R. Karpagam vs CIT (Supra). A similar issue has been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of K.G. Rukminiamma vs CIT [2011] 196 Taxmann 87 (Kar). Therefore, we cannot find fault with the claim of the assessee :-8-: ITA. No: 422/Chny/2023 on this ground alone. In so far as second reason given by the Assessing Officer is that, the construction of house property was not completed within three years from the date of transfer of original asset. We find that the assessee has admitted…

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

…idential house consisting of several independent units cannot be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under section 54/54F, it is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited  CIT & ANR. vs. SMT. K.G. RUKMINIAMMA - 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka High Court) Capital gains-Exemption under s. 54-Investment in more than one residential houses/flats Assessee entered into a joint development agreement with builder to develop her property under which builder agreed to construct and agreed to deliver 48 per cent of the super built area to the assessee in the form of residential apartm…

RAVI AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniravi Agrawal Pr. Cit 101-102, Kanchan Vihar, Indore Vs. Niranjanpur, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aorpa 2161 B Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 263Section 54

…point which are as under: 1. Ravi Shankar, Mumbai vs AsstCit 16(3), (2018), Mumbai 2. CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP), Andhra Pradesh High Court ] 3. CIT v. Gita Duggal [2013] 30 taxmann.com 230/214 Taxman 51 (Delhi) 4. CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma (331 ITR 211) 5. ITO v. Smt. Jyothi K. Mehta (2011) 12 Taxman 440 6. Prem Prakash Bhutani v. ACIT (2009) 31 SOT 38 7. ITO v. Ms. Shushila M. Jhaveri (2007) 107 ITD 327 8. CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri (2013) 81 DTR 33 9. V.R. Karpaam (Smt.) v. ITO (2013) 143 ITD 126 10. ACIT v. Deepak S. Bheda (2012) 52 SOT 327 (Mum.) (Trib.) 11. ACIT v. Leela P. Nanda (2006) 286 I…

M/S.KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/34/2018HC Kerala15 Dec 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S.KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURALFor Respondent: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

…a Taluk means as more than one or more Taluks. The explanation is clear and categorical. Applying the Golden Rule of interpretation, it is argued that the Explanation is clear and categorical as referring 1 [2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar) 2 [2011] 331 ITR 211 (Karn) ITA Nos.34 & 35 of 2018 & 25 & 27 of 2019 15 to a Taluk. Explanation (b) of Section 80P(4) means that a society has its area of operation confined to a Taluk, and the principal object of the society is to provide for long-term credit for agricultural and rural development…

THE MEENACHIL CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

ITA/25/2019HC Kerala15 Dec 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S.KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURALFor Respondent: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

THE MEENACHIL CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/35/2018HC Kerala15 Dec 2022

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

For Appellant: M/S.KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURALFor Respondent: THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITO WARD - 30(1), NEW DELHI vs. KUSUM GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue Department, stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 914/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Jindal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: ShriAnujGarg, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 250Section 54

…residential house has been agitated. It is pertinent to mention that the Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54 of the Act by relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt K.G. Rukminiamma 120111 331 ITR 211 (Kar) wherein it has been held! that residential flats constitute 'a residential housel for the purpose of section 54, where profit on sale of property is used for residence and further held that four residential flats cannot be construed as four residential houses for the purpose of section 54, when all are situated in the same building. It has…

SHRI RAJEEV NATARAJ LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI P NATARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR

Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1st Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. PAN: AHAPN9475D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is fi…

SHRI. P. KRISHNA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1945/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…under:- “6. Ground No.4 : Exemption u/s.54F of the Act. 6.1 In respect of Ground No.4 (supra), learned Authorised Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of K.G. Rukminiamma reported in 331 ITR 211 (Kar) and Anand Basappa reported in 309 ITR 329 (Kar). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of V.R. Karpagam in T.C. (Appeal) No.301/2014 dt.18.8.2014. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that in view of the above judicial pronouncements, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption und…

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2(1), CHENNAI vs. A.M.K.SHAHUL HAMEED, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1253/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1253/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri A.M.K. Shahul Hameed, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Vs. Old No. 5, New No. 9, Rangan Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aabph6895F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai Dated 11.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 01.06.2013 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.10,82,700/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Following Due Process, The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 2

For Appellant: Shri AR V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A

Section 2Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. म॑जुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1253/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri A.M.K. Shahul Hameed, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Vs. Old No. 5, New No. 9, Rangan Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [PAN:AABPH6895F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri AR V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT ""थ" की ओर से/Respon…

SUNANDAN KUMAR MINOCHA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-63(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3135/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harpal Singh, Senior DR

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 54

…idential house consisting of several independent units cannot be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under section 54/54F, it is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited • CIT & ANR. vs. SMT. K.G. RUKMINIAMMA - 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka High Court) Capital gains-Exemption under s. 54-Investment in more than one residential houses/flats Assessee entered into a joint development agreement with builder to develop her property under which builder agreed to construct and agreed to deliver 48 per cent of the super built area to the assessee in the form of residential apartm…

ROBIN SINGH CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 29(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7074/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Robin Singh Chauhan, Vs Acit, 100/1, Gautam Nagar, Circle-29(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepc9857F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venkatesh Chaurasia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-10, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2012- 13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Long-Term Capital Gain & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 28Th July, 2012 Declaring The Total Income At Rs2,61,98,009/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Shown An Income Of Rs.2,46,33,865/- Under The Head ‘Long- Term Capital Gain.’ The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act For An Amount Of Rs.2,05,71,400/- On Account Of Investment In Two Properties. The Calculation Of The Cost Of Acquisition Of The New Property As Submitted By The Assessee & Reproduced By The Ao Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Robin Singh Chauhan, Vs ACIT, 100/1, Gautam Nagar, Circle-29(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAEPC9857F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venkatesh Chaurasia, CA Revenue by : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27th September, 2017 of the CIT(A)-10, New Delhi, r…

S.M. VINOD (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SRI. S M MUNIYAPPA),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C. Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besa Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…hat the units on the said floors were independent & self- contained and not "a residential house" and granted exemption for only one unit. The CIT(A) and Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim by relying on B.AnandaBasappa 309 ITR 329 (Kar) and K.G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 (Kar). On appeal by the ITA No. 2692/Bang/2018 department, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Hon'ble Court observed that as held in B.AnandaBassappa (SLP dismissed) & K G Rukminiamma, the Revenue's contention that the phrase "a" residential house would mean "one" residential house is not correct. The expression "a" residenti…

SRI RAMAIAH HARISH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Gangadhar Shastry, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 54F

…that the units on the said floors were independent & self-contained and not "a residential house" and granted exemption for only one unit. The CIT(A) and Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim by relying on B.AnandaBasappa 309 ITR 329 (Kar) and K.G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 (Kar). On appeal by the ITA No. 2692/Bang/2018 department, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Hon'ble Court observed that as held in B.AnandaBassappa (SLP dismissed) & K G Rukminiamma, the Revenue's contention that the phrase "a" residential house would mean "one" residential house is not correct. The expression "a" residenti…

Showing 1–20 of 104 · Page 1 of 6