CIT v. Smt. M. Kalpagam in TCA No.984 of

284 ITR 20High Court2006#12551 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 54F Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. M. Kalpagam in TCA No.984 of

Mr. Thirumani, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3351/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3351/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thirumani, Acit, 260/1, Mint Street, Park Town, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai – 600 003. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagpt-7541-K] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

…limited portion of the total land cannot be a ground to deny exemption u/s.54F of the Act. The ld.AR also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions.  CIT vs. Smt. M. Kalpagam in TCA No.984 of 1984  CIT vs. Smt. Sunita Aggarwal [2006] 284 ITR 20 (Delhi)  CIT vs. Kalyanaraman Nataraja [2017] 82 taxmann.com 93 (Chennai – Trib.)  ACIT vs. Anandhi Karthikeyan in ITA No.1242/Mds/2009  Girish Mohan vs. ACIT [2023] 153 taxmann.com 554 (Delhi – Trib.)  DCIT vs. Kanwal Mohan Singh Sehgal in ITA No.500/Del/2019  Addl CIT vs. Narendra Mohan Uniyal in ITA No.1624/Del/2009  ACIT vs. Somchand Kan…

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), Internatioanl Taxation, New Delhi vs. Heera Lal Bhasin Legal Heir of Lt. Sh. Mohan Lal Bhasin, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8339/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Deora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 54Section 54(1)

…ression ‘a residential house’ in section 54 of the Act is not confined to a single flat or house. The assessee supported the above contentions by relying of the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. D. Ananda Basappa 223 ITR 186 (Kar) (ii) CIT vs. Sunita Aggarwal 284 ITR 20 (Del) (iii) CIT vs. Gita Duggal 30 taxmann.com 30 (Del) 3.1 The contentions raised by the assessee were not acceptable to the Ld. AO. He was of the view that the assessee constructed three independent residential houses. It cannot, therefore be said that three houses are ‘one residential house’ as each of them is independent house consisting of s…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A N D SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. No. 448/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Smt. Chander Kanta Income Tax Officer, Maheshwari, Legal Heir of Late Vs. Shri Ashok Kumar Maheshwari, Ward : 35 (2), 35/11, Shakti Nagar, Delhi –110 007. New Delhi. PAN: AAGPM0302F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : N o n e; Department by: Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing : 20/12/2021 Date of pronouncement : 19/01/2022 O R D E R PER N. K. CHOUDHRY, J. M. 1. Thisappea…

Dipti Nalin Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 17(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3274/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M Balaganeshdipti Nalin Parikh, Crescent Bay T4 Apt. 3103-3104, Near, Parel Bhoiwada, Opp. Cancer Society, Jeerabai Wadai Road, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aabpp5053F ............ Appellant Vs. Ito-17(1)(4), 115, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sonia Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 54Section 54(1)

…contiguous flats converted into a single residential premise should be treated as a residential house for the purpose of section 54." 5 CIT v. Smt. Sunita The Honorable High Court of Delhi held that Aggarwal (2006) “finding of the Tribunal that execution of 284 ITR 20 (Delhi) different sale deeds in respect of different 15 ITA No. 3274 Mum 2019-Dipti Nalin Parikh portions of the property did not affect materially the nature of the property acquired by the assessee since it was being used by assessee for residential purposes and therefore, deduction u/s. 54 was allowable, being a finding of fact, did not give…

Prem Jain, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 279/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka (Adv) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 263Section 54F

…rs passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind." 9. The assessee has relied upon the following judgements in support of the claim u/s 54F: • ACIT Vs Leela P Nanda 102 ITD 281(Mumbai Trib) • CIT Vs Sunita Aggarwal 284 ITR 20 (Delhi High Court) • CIT Vs Devdas Naik 366 ITR '12 ( Bomaby High Court) • CIT Vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153 (Delhi High Court) The facts of the above cases are clearly distinguishable from that of the assessee. In case at serial no. 1 above, two contiguous flats were made into one unit. In the assessee’s case, the plots are vacant with a very small…

Ravi Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2457/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 54Section 54F

…ential house consists 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." (b) In CIT v. Smt. Sunita Aggarwal (2006) 284 ITR 20 (Delhi), the fact was that the assessee had acquired four portions of property by four different sale deeds, but they all constituted one residential house, where she was residing with her husband and children. It was held that the benefit under section 54 of the Act would be available in respect of all the four portions. 1.6.3 Coming to the seco…

Smt. Manishaben Rakeshbhai Naik, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 886/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.886/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Manishaben Rakeshbhai Vs. The Income Tax Naik, Officer, 26-B, Alka Society, Ward-3, Navsari. Chhapara Road, Navsari, Pan: Acjpn 5740 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 08-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 19-06-2018

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…u/s.54F of the Act in respect of land appurtenant to the construction of residential house. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of N.M.Uniyal had followed the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunita Agarwal [2006] 284 ITR 20 (Del). The AR strongly contended that merely because the plots were purchased through 3 conveyance deed, it should not be considered as 3 different plots. The appellant strongly alleged that, if 2 or 3 different plots are purchased as per the Revenue records through Page 8 of 17 Smt. Manishaben Rakeshbhai Naik vs. ITO, Ward-3, Navsari/I.T.A. No.8…

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

…section 54(1) would suggest that the benefit of that provision is intended for the new asset, which is meant at the time of purchase or construction, to be used for the dwelling purpose by the assessee. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Smt. Sunita Agrawal (2006) 284 ITR 20 (Del.), CIT vs V. Narajan (2006) 287 ITR 271 (Mad.), DIT vs Ms. Jennifer Bhide (2012) 349 ITR 80 (Karn.) supports the case of the assessee. Keeping in view, the totality of facts and the foregoing discussion, the assessee has made substantial compliance of the provision by investing required amount within stipulated period, therefore, we find no i…