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

Shri Rutul M. Dave, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, Int. Taxn., Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meena, Sr.D.R

…te the object of granting exemption. 11. We also find judgments of other High Courts giving benefit of s. 54F(1) of the Act when the house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT vs. V. Natarajan (2006) 203 CTR (Mad) 37 : (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad) though this case was decided in relation to s. 54 of the Act, the ITA No.2627/Ahd/2017 Shri Chitrang M. Dave vs. DCIT Asst.Year - 2013-14 said section is pari materia of s. 54F(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh (2008) 218 CTR (P&H) 674 : (2008) 6 DTR (P&H) 83 : (2010) 327 ITR 278 (P…

Shri Kailash Bhagwan Choudhary, Indore vs. The ITO 2(3), Indore

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

ITA 68/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 54BSection 54F

…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…

Rambhaj Notna, Karnal vs. ACIT (OSD), Ward- 5, Karnal

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

ITA 5683/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Kirti Karan Goel, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 44ASection 54

…e assessee has failed to substantiate the contention of carrying on the Agriculture Income. iii) The above point can be very well retrieved from the fact of CIT v/s. Kamal Wahal: (2013) 214 Taxman 287 (Del) and Madras High Court case of CIT vs Natrajan (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad.) wherein it was held that assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 54 even it is a purchase in the name of his wife. Similar view has been expressed in CIT vs Gurnam Singh (2010)327 itr (P&H) and CIT vs Ravinder Kumar Arora of Delhi High Court wherein it was held that the asset should be purchased by the assessee but not necessarily in his nam…

Shri Bilas Chand, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(1), Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 399/ASR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 399/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24Section 80CSection 80E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 399/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bilas Chand s/o Chanda Ram, vs. Income Tax Officer, #21813, Street No.1, Ward 1(1), Bathinda Near Shiv Mandir, Power House Road Bathinda [PAN: ABMPC 6938Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. J. K. Gupta (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 22.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 29.04.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal…

Sunku Padmanabha, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2639/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri K.S. Nagesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 54Section 54F

…hers. b. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that the co-owners are none other than the spouse, son and daughter-in-law. 6) a. The learned CIT ought to have appreciated the observations of Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs V.Natarajan (2006) 287 ITR 271 (Mad). b. The court observes that "the assessee has purchased a house in the name of his wife after selling the property at Bangalore. But the same was assessed in the hands of assessee. Hence, as correctly held by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. The assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 54." 7) The learned CIT ought to ha…

Sri Dheeraj Govindappa, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 2724/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2724/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Dheeraj Govindappa, Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, 1183, 3Rd Cross, 3Rd Stage, Ward – 4[2][2], Hal Layout, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan : Bpqpg 3893 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Satya Sai Rath, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Satya Sai Rath, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54F

…e" as that would frustrate the object of granting exemption. 11. We also find judgments of other High Courts giving benefit of Section 54F(1) of the Act when the house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT Vs. 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(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh, (2010) 327 ITR 278 took the Page 8 of 9 same view while discussing the provisions of Section 54 of the Act which is again pari mater…

Kumaravelu Varadharajan @ K.Varadharajan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 617/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.617/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Kumaravelu Varadharajan @ K. The Income Tax Officer, Varadharajan, No. 11/1, Narasimma Vs. International Taxation Ii(2), Nagar, 1St Street, Kodungaiyur, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 112. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Abwpv4091P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Gopikrishna, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Gopikrishna, JCIT
Section 48Section 54Section 54E

…sarily be in the name of the assessee either under section 54 or under section 54EC of the Act by relying on the decision in the case of DIT v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (2011) 203 Taxman 208 (Kar.). By relying on the decision in the case of CIT v. Natarajan (2006) 154 Taxmann 399 (Mad), wherein it was held that the where an assessee who owned a house property, sold the same and purchased another property in the name of his wife, exemption under section 54 shall be allowable, which was followed in the case of CIT v. Shri Kamal Wahal 351 ITR 4 (Del), wherein, it was held that the new residential house need not be purcha…

Allan Emanuel Fernandes, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2493/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.M.Rajapurkar
Section 54F

…tion 54F being beneficial provision enacted for encouraging investment in residential houses and should be liberally interpreted. The ld. AR to further support his contentions placed reliance on the following decisions:- i) CIT Vs. V. Natarajan, reported as 287 ITR 271 (Madras) ii) CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora, reported as 342 ITR 38 (Delhi) iii) DIT Vs. Jennifer Bhide reported as 349 ITR 80 (Kar.) iv) Mir Gulam Ali Khan Vs. CIT reported as 165 ITR 288 (AP) 6. On the other hand, Rajesh Gawli representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned orders. The ld. DR submitted that the provisions of sec…

Shri Chitrang M Dave, Vadodara vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2627/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.DR
Section 54Section 54F

…te the object of granting exemption. 11. We also find judgments of other High Courts giving benefit of s. 54F(1) of the Act when the house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT vs. V. Natarajan (2006) 203 CTR (Mad) 37 : (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad) though this case was decided in relation to s. 54 of the Act, the Shri Chitrang M. Dave vs. DCIT Asst.Year – 2013-14 said section is pari materia of s. 54F(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh (2008) 218 CTR (P&H) 674 : (2008) 6 DTR (P&H) 83 : (2010) 327 ITR 278 (P&H) took the same vie…

Smt. Uma Nandwani, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1413/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shobhit TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54Section 54F

…e object of granting exemption. 10 I.T.A. No.1413/Del/2016 11. We also find judgments of other High Courts giving benefit of Section 54F(1) of the Act when the house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT Vs. 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(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT 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 Sectio…

Ganesh Chawla, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 452/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Podar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena
Section 54F

…at a new house was constructed then the deduction u/s 54F is allowable. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decision as under:- • CIT & anr. Vs. P.R. Seshadri 329 ITR 377 • CIT vs. P.V. Narasimhan 181 ITR 101 • CIT vs. V. Natarajan 287 ITR 271 • CIT vs. Kamal Wahal 351 ITR 0004 • Shri Laxmi Narayan vs. CIT in ITA No. 20/2016 Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (supra) has held that there is nothing in section 6 Sh. Genesh Chawla vs. ACIT 54F to show that the assessee should have purchased/constructed a residential house in h…

Virender Kumar Sharma, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-67(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5150/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2013-14 Virender Kumar Sharma, Ito, Ward- 67(1), 1240, Sector-37, Arun Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 54

…" as that would frustrate the object of granting exemption. 11. We also find judgments of other High Courts giving benefit of Section 54F(1) of the Act when the house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT Vs. 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(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT 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 Sectio…

Bhagwan Swaroop Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Punam Rai (D.CIT)
Section 24Section 48Section 54

…ntire investments was made from the sale proceeds and there was no contribution from the wife then the claim of section 54 cannot be denied in support of his contention. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High in case of CIT vs. V. Natarajan 287 ITR 271 as well as decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Wahal 351 ITR 4 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name nor it is necessary that it should be purchased exclusively in his name. Therefore, the house purchase in the name of his wife…

Mrs.Kavita Tiwari, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

ITA 1916/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazmrs. Kavita Tiwari, D-202, Adarsh Residency, 8Th Block, Jayanagar, Sangam Circle, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan – Acvpt1583G. Appellant By : Shri R.E Balasubramaniam, C.A Respondent By : Shri M.K Biju, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16-08-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : -10-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramaniam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M.K Biju, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘C’ BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mrs. Kavita Tiwari, D-202, Adarsh Residency, 8th Block, Jayanagar, Sangam Circle, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Bengaluru. . Respondent PAN – ACVPT1583G. Appellant by : Shri R.E Balasubramaniam, C.A Respondent by : Shri M.K Biju, JCIT Date of Hearing : 16-08-2017 Date of Pronouncement : -10-2017 O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-7, Bangalore dat…

Shri Sukhram Mukati, Indore vs. The ITO WD-3(3), Indore

In the result, the appeal of Shri Sukhram Mukati and

ITA 409/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 143Section 54BSection 68Section 69Section 69A

…e of his wife, the deduction was not allowable. He reduced the deduction and computed the capital gains accordingly. 5. On appeal, the CIT (Appeal) accepted the assessee's contention based on the judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271/154 Taxman 399 and that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mir Gulam Ali Khan v. CIT [1987] 165 ITR 228/[1986] 28 Taxman 572. 6. The revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal questioning the decision of the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal, however, by the impugned order, agreed with the decision of the CIT (Appeals) and in doing so followed the…

Vivek Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Us. The Assessee Has Also Purchased A Residential Property On 23.05.2011 For A Purchase Consideration Of Rs. 30,00,000/- In The Name Of His Wife, Smt. Nikita Jain & Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Which Is In Dispute Before Us.

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi Samadhani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)
Section 54F

…the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his name nor is it necessary that it should be purchased and exclusively in his name. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271) where the house 4 Shri Vivek Jain, Jaipur, vs. DCIT, Jaipur was purchased in the name of the assessee’s wife, deduction under section 54 was allowed. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Gulam Ali Khan vs. CIT (165 ITR 228) wherein in the context of section 54 of the Act, it was…

Kalpana Sundar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-8(1), Chennai

ITA 2153/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2153/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. Kalpana Sundar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 4/3, Sri Janakas, 2Nd Cross Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(1), Street, East Kamakodi Nagar, Chennai. Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. [Pan:Cnvps4092J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 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) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of Tax Exemption Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54FSection 64

…the Assessing Officer is not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee.” 6.3.1 Further, on similar facts and circumstances in an identical issue, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271 and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Courts in the case of CIT v. Gurnam Singh [2010] 327 ITR 278, in the case of DIT v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has observed and held as under: “2. The assessee is a non-resident individual. She filed her return of income on 31.07.2007 for the year 2007-08 decl…

ITO 16(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jayant Kumar J Choksi, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7280/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 19(2)(1), Shri Jayantkumar Javerilal 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Choksi, Tardeo Road, 524, Sandhurst Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 007 Svp Road, Opera House, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Aaepc3646E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R. Revenue By : Shri, Rajesh Ojha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri, Rajesh Ojha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…Bhaya, 95 lTD 313 (Mum), Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT held that the new asset in the name of the assessee jointly with his mother and father was sufficient compliance for availing exemption u/s. 54F. 2.4.10 Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs. V.Natarajan (2006) 154 Taxmann 399 (Mad), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that the purchase of house in the name of wife without even including the assessees name in the title deed will not deny the benefit of exemption u/s. 54F. 2.4.11 In the case of Ravinder Kaur Arora Vs. CIT (2012) 21 Taxmann.com 305 (Del), it has been held that if the new house was bought in 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

…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 infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Ld.…

CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora

ITA - 1106 / 2011HC Delhi17 Sept 2011
Section 54F

…ITA No.1106 of 2011 Page 10 of 10 11. We also find judgments of other High Courts giving benefit of Section 54F(1) of the Act when the house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT Vs. 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(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT 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 o…