CIT v. V. Natarajan

287 ITR 271High Court2006#1914 most cited

What is CIT v. V. Natarajan authority for?

The deduction under Section 54 for investment in a new residential property is available even if the property is purchased in the name of the assessee's wife or jointly with the spouse.

60

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. V. Natarajan · V. Natarajan Madras High Court · Section 54 exemption · Section 54F deduction · capital gains residential property · purchase in wife's name · joint ownership spouse · new house property exemption · assessee and wife property

Also reported as

154 Taxmann 399

Sections most often in play

Section 54Section 54FSection 143(3)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 54f(1)section 90aunexplained jewellerysection 24(b)under-reporting of incomesection 80csection 54fforeign tax creditroyalty incomesection 54bwithholding taxsection 54

Judgments citing CIT v. V. Natarajan

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1 (3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 303/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1 (3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 302/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 301/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

Gopalkrishna Pandu Shetty, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. ACIT Circle 32(1), Mumbai, Mahrashtra

ITA 2471/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…Tribunal in the case of Bhagwan Swaroop Pathak Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Gurgaon, Haryana : [ITA No. 2754/Del/2019, dated 05/03/2020]. Reliance was also placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. V. Natarajan: [2006] 287 ITR 271. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the 7. decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash s/o Timaji Dhanjode (supra) on which reliance was placed by the CIT(A) while confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed by the Appellant under Section 54 of the Act. We have considered the rival contention and p…

M/S Siddhula;L, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2(2) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 110/IND/2023[2011-12d]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Dhypp1740N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C(1)Section 50C(2)Section 54B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Siddhulal Patidar, Income-tax Officer, 01,Gram Sallaiya, 2(2), बनाम/ Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) PAN: DHYPP1740N Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal and Shri N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 03.02.2023 p…

Imran Khan, Bhopal vs. The ITO2 (2), Bhyopal

In the result the issue No

ITA 168/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradimran Khan Ito 2(2) S/O Sh. Gulab Khan H. No.35 Bhopal Village-Inayatpura Kolar Board, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ckqpk5708M Assessee By Shri Niranjan Purandar Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2024

Section 54B

…" as that would frustrate the object of granting exemption. I1. We also find judgments of other. High Courts giving benefit of Section 54F(l) of the Act when the house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT V~. Natrajan, (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad), though this case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, the said Section is pari materia of Section 54F(l) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Cl'I' Vs, Gurnam Singh, (2010) 327 ITR 278 took the same view while discussing the provisions of Section 54 of the Act which is again pari materia of Sect…

Simran Bagga, Dubai vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation, 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1786/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 54

…ld not travel to India and the registry was completed in the name of Mr. Ajay Suri for the sake of convenience. 12. On this issue, we are guided by the various orders of the Hon’ble High Courts and the Tribunal which are as under: a) CIT vs. Natarajan, [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Madras HC) - The deduction under section 54 was allowed where the new 5 Simran Bagga residential property was purchased in the name of the wife of the assessee. b) DIT vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide [2011] 15 taxmann.com 82 (Kar HC) – The Tribunal has allowed exemption u/s 54 for investment in residential property by the assessee jointly with her hus…

Narasimalu Janakiraman, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward-7(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2757/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Narasimalu Janakiraman, The Income Tax Officer, No. 16/13, Jmr Gang A Flat, V. Non-Corporate Ward -7(2), Duraisamy 2Nd Street, Korattur, Chennai. Chennai – 600 080. [Pan: Amypj-1352-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 54F

…from the limits of local municipality. However, directed the AO to allow the benefit of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act by following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in :-4-: ITA. No:2757/Chny/2019 the case of CIT vs Natarajan (2006) 287 ITR 271. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. None appeared for the assessee. We heard the ld. Sr. AR and perused relevant material available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has recorded categorical finding that the assessee could not file any evidence to prove that the impugned land sold by the assessee along with o…

Meena Thiagarajan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3195/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri N.Arjun Raj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…of the case. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by relying on various case laws cited above. We noted that this issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. V Natarajan, [2006] 287 ITR 271. The Hon’ble High Court considered this issue on identical facts and held in favour of assessee in para 3.3 to 3.6 as under:- 3.3 It is admitted by the assessee that he sold a house property at Bangalore. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee owned a house property and sold the same. He also admits that he purchased a property at Madras in the…

Achal Kumar Malhotra, Haryana vs. Pr. CIT, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 455/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, ADvFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…r grandson's name, therefore, cannot be held entitled to exemption under section 54B of the Act. 11. We may make a brief reference to the decision relied upon by counsel for the assessee. Learned counsel mainly relied upon the decision in V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Mad), with reference to section 54 of the Act. 12. The Madras High Court in V. Natarajan's case [2006] 287 ITR 271 was dealing with a case relating to section 54 of the act wherein the assessee who after selling hjs residential house had purchased another residential house in his wife's name, the court had concluded that the assessee in such ci…

Kaushlendra Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-5(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 May 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri C.P. Chawla (ITP)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271FSection 54F

…III) Shri Kamal Wahal (Delhi HC) (2013) 351 ITR 4. Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri (IV) Ravindra Kumar Arora (Delhi) (2012) 342 ITR 38 (Del). (V) Decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri Natarajan (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad). Decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case (VI) of CIT Vs Shri Gurman Singh (2014) 327 ITR 278. Decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT (VII) Vs Mrs. Jennifer Bhide 349 ITR 80. The ld. CIT(A) has not given any heed to the various submission put forth before him. The decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High C…

Bhaskari Madhavan, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-19(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 572/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.572/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mrs. Bhaskari Madhavan, Vs Income Tax Officer, 6,Chellam Homes, First Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-19(4), Kuberan Nagar, Velacherry, Chennai. Chennai-600 042. Pan: Afipb 6629M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. AR V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 30.03.2022
Section 147Section 148Section 54

…justified in making an addition of Rs.16,77,5741- by disallowing the deduction claimed U/s. 54, as the New property was purchased in the name of Appellant’s daughter. 2. The appellant relies on the ratio of decision of Madras High Court in CIT vs V Natarajan 287 ITR 271. 3. The appellant also relies on the Judgement of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in Smt.A.Tamil Ponni (I.T.A.No.3112/Chny/2019) 4. The ‘appellant’ denies her liability to be assessed in terms of Notice dated 27.03.2018 said to be issued under section 148 of the ‘Act’. That the AO erred in issuing the notice u/s. 148 of the Act to the app…

DCIT-8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ashok Santu Bhavani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed

ITA 6510/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6Th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New Pushpamilan, Mk Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018

For Appellant: Mr.Mehul Jain.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Ajit Jain.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New pushpamilan, MK Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AEUPB2016F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.Mehul Jain.Sr.DR Respondent by : Mr.Ajit Jain.AR Date of Hearing 18.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of…

Braham Prakash, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6188/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 54BSection 54F

…r grandson's name, therefore, cannot be held entitled to exemption under section 54B of the Act. We may make a brief reference to the decision relied 11. upon by counsel for the assessee. Learned counsel mainly relied upon the decision in V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Mad), with reference to section 54 of the Act. The Madras High Court in V. Natarajan's case [2006] 12. 287 ITR 271 was dealing with a case relating to section 54 of the act wherein the assessee who after selling his residential house had purchased another residential house in his wife's name, the court had concluded that the assessee in such ci…

V.Muralikrishna, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 15(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 478/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 478/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri V. Muralikrishna, The Assistant Commissioner Of A1, Komala Krishna, 8/20, Vs. Income Tax, Corporation School Road, Non Corporate Circle 15(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Auzpm1551F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 27.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. Besides Challenging Confirmation Of Addition Of Long Term Capital Gains, By Raising A Specific Ground, The Assessee Has Challenged The Exparte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 54

…ied the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the written submissions of the assessee with regard to the claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act as well as decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. V. Natarajan 287 ITR 271, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of long term capital gain since the assessee has not furnished the evidence as called for to allow the benefit to the assessee despite giving various opportunities. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By referring to the specific ground raised in the grounds of appeal at gr…

Anitha Bobba, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1863/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Bivpb 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By: Shri N. Srikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/02/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri N. Srikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 158BSection 250(6)Section 54Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “SMC”, HYDERABAD (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Bobba Anitha, Vs. ACIT, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), PAN: BIVPB 4181 K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri V. Siva Kumar Revenue by: Shri N. Srikanth, DR Date of hearing: 12/01/2021 Date of pronouncement: 04/02/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-10, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0011/CIT(A)-10/2016-17, dated 14/08/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 and U…

Balwant Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1105/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…ligible for deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act. 8 The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:  CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal 351 ITR 4(Del)  Laxmi Narayan vs. CIT 402 ITR 117 ( Rajasthan)  ITO Vs. S. Vardarajan 33 TTJ (Mad.) 466 Third  CIT Vs. V. Natarajan 287 ITR 271 (Madras) Where entire consideration had flown from assessee he cannot be denied deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Since entire consideration has been flown from assessee and no consideration had flown from any other person, merely because in sale deed name of such other person was also mentioned, assessee could not be denied benefit of deduction of U…

Smt. A. Tamil Ponni, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward - IV(3), Trichy

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

ITA 3112/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr.R.S.Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: M/s.Vijayaprabha,JCIT,D.R

…has been made by the assessee in the name of her husband instead of in her name. This is a sole reason for denial of exemption under Section.54F of the Act. We find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.I.T Vs. V.Natarajan reported in 287 ITR 271 (Mad.), which has been heavily relied upon by Ld. A.R. before us, had held as under:- “Ïn the instant case, the assessee purchased a house property at Anna Nagar in the name of his wife Smt.Meera after selling a property at Bangalore, but the same was assessed in the hands of the assessee. Hence, as correctly held by the learned CIT(A) as well a…

Randhir Singh, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6394/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08

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

…son or grandson's name, therefore, cannot be held entitled to exemption under section 54B of the Act. We may make a brief reference to the decision relied upon by counsel for the assessee. Learned counsel mainly relied upon the decision in V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Mad), with reference to section 54 of the Act. The Madras High Court V. Natarajan's case [2006] 287 ITR 271 was dealing with a case relating o section 54 of the act wherein the assessee who after selling his residential house had 5 purchased another residential house in his wife's name, the court had concluded that the assessee in such circumsta…

A Vijayakumari, Pattukkottai vs. ITO, Ncw-1, Thanjavur

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

ITA 3435/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3435/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. A. Vijayakumari, The Income Tax Officer, No. 25, Pillaiyar Koil St., Pattukottai, Vs. Ward 1, Thanjavur District. Thanjavur. [Pan:Aacpv3947K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 27.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On Confirmation Of Both Income From Long Term Capital Gains & Short Term Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 50CSection 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी इंट"री रामा राव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3435/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. A. Vijayakumari, The Income Tax Officer, No. 25, Pillaiyar Koil St., Pattukottai, Vs. Ward 1, Thanjavur District. Thanjavur. [PAN:AACPV3947K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar, CA ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Cleme…