How many judgments cite CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar (290 ITR 90), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar come up under?

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

CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar

290 ITR 90High Court2007#10467 most cited

What is CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar authority for?

Construction of a residential house for claiming deduction under section 54F must be a real construction and not merely symbolic. The intention behind section 54F is to promote housing construction, not the destruction of existing residential buildings.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar · 2007 · 290 ITR 90 · section 54F · section 54 · capital gains · construction · residential house · real construction · housing promotion

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 54f date of transfer section 54 section 45 long term capital gain previous year transfer section 13 prescribed section 143(3)india document

Judgments citing CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar

Sneh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-32(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

ITA 3928/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 54F

…, there was no condition that building plan of residential house should be approved by Municipal Corporation or any other competent authority - B. Sivasubramanian vs. Income Tax Officer." 17 • Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case CIT v. Pradeep Kumar [2007] 290 ITR 90 wherein it was held that "……construction must be real one. It should not be a symbolic construction. The intention of the legislation was not for destruction of residential building but for promoting the construction of the residential housing units. Further, it added that the Parliament in its wisdom had enacted section 54F in the Finance Act, 19…

Chandra Bhavani Sankar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 16(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.101/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Shri Chandra Bhavani Sankar, The Ito, 1/3A, Vinayakar Koil Street, Ncw-16(2), Thalambur, Chennai. Chennai-600 130. [Pan: Aeypb 1764 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sathyanarayanan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 54(1)Section 54FSection 68

…eld that the construction of a new residential house to its existing residence qualifies for deduction u/s.54F of the Act, and the Tribunal also noted the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Shri V. Pradeep Kumar v. CIT reported in [2007] 290 ITR 90 [Mad.HC] which has been relied by the AO to deny the claim u/s.54F of the Act. In the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), there was a definite finding of fact that there was no tangible material to form a belief that a residential house/dwelling unit was constructed; and it was found that it was only an extension of existing building by 382 feet that…

Amita Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 279/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Amita Multitrade Private Limited Dcit Central Circle 4(3) Room No. 1921, 19Th Floor, 401/A, Pearl Arcade, Opp K Jewellers, Air India Building, Vs. Dawood Baug Lane, Nariman Point, Off Jp Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica1012D Assessee By : Shri Ashok Bansa & Shri Ajay Daga, Ars : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansa &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…not in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft [259 ITR 19(SC)] as held by the jurisdictional high court in the case of Allana Cold Storage Co. vs. ITO 287 ITR 1 (Bom.); in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2008) 290 ITR 90 (Bom); and in the case of Bayer Material Science (P) Ltd. 382 ITR 333 (Bom.). Amita Multitrade Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2010-11 2.iii. Moreover, the Id. CIT(A) did not appreciate that the AO made the addition on a ground other than the ground on which the reasons were recorded rendering the assessment order as null & void. 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in holdi…

Navin Surya, Worli, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4772/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Hema Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…ennai) wherein the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. V. Pradeep Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. V. Pradeep Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar [2007] 290 ITR 90 (Madras). Since, t Kumar [2007] 290 ITR 90 (Madras). Since, the Co-ordinate Bench in ordinate Bench in the case of Chandrakant S. Choksi HUF (supra) followed the the case of Chandrakant S. Choksi HUF (supra) followed the the case of Chandrakant S. Choksi HUF (supra) followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue in dispute Hon’ble Sup…

Mohammad Akhtar Khan, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bhilai

ITA 87/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita No. 87/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Mohammad Akhtar Khan Ibrahim Bada, Nr Masjid Titurdih, Raipur, (C.G.) . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri Gitesh Kumar सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 16/11/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 16/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee By The Present Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 26/04/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Confirming The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) Raipur [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14 [For Short “Ay”] 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Memo Are;

For Appellant: Shri R. B. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 54Section 54F

…owner of the house property along with his brother on the date of transfer and he utilized the long term capital gain for construction of additional floor in the same house. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. V. Pradeep Kumar and Anr. 290 ITR 90 (Mad.) has held that a mere extension of the existing building will not give benefit to the assessee under Section 54F of the Act. The case of the assessee clearly comes within the ken of the ratio of the aforesaid decision. The decision in the case of CIT v. P.V. Narasimhan 181 ITR 101 (Mad), as relied by the ld. Counsel was considered in the cas…

Rita Chandiok, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 52(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3270/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2011-12 Rita Chandiok, Acit, L-41, Connaught Circus, Vs Circle-52(1), New Delhi-110001. New Delhi. Pan-Aaapc2224L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2011-12 Rita Chandiok, Acit, C/O-Mr.Vinod Chandiok, Vs Circle-31(1), M/S. Walkar Chandiok & Co., New Delhi. L-41, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaapc2224L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Vinod Bindal, Ca & Ms. Sweety Kothari, Adv. Respondent By Sh.Farhat Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2021

Section 143(3)Section 54

…isdictional HC in the case of Kuldeep Singh(Supra) and as discussed by me above, the appellant is eligible for the exemption u/s 54F, in my humble opinion. 5.10.16 However, I must leave a note of caution here. As held in CIT vs V. Pradeep Kumar 53 Taxman 138/290 ITR 90 ( Mad) para 9: For the purpose of exemption under section 54F, the assessees must construct residential houses within three years from the date of transfer. The question here is whether the assessee constructs a residential house or not. In this case, there is no proof for the construction of the same and hence the assessees are not entitled to r…

Ita Chandiok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, 31(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5559/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 54

Tcg Development India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee are allowed and reassessment is quashed

ITA 4310/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishitcg Development India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 100, Ground Floor, Ward-16(1), Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- New Delhi Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaact2836J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Atul Ninawal, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Sain Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(b)

…see was also not given 4 weeks time after the rejection of the objections against the reopening of the assessment to explore the alternative remedy available to the assessee which is also contrary to the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of 290 ITR 90 wherein it has been specifically held that if Assessing Officer does not accept the objections so filed, he shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of service of the said order on objections, on the assessee. In the present case even before the service of the order rejecting the objections of…

Kethsial Justin, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.781/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. Smt. Kethsial Justin, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.1022, 6Th Avenue, Corporate Ward 2(1) Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 040. [Pan Ahjpk 9090N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Al. Eagammai, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…040 owned by the assessee. However, ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that what assessee constructed was only an extension of an existing building and by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT vs V. Pradeep Kumar, 290 ITR 90, extension of an old existing house would not be equivalent to construction of a new residential house. He denied the claim made by the assessee u/s.54F of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). According to the assessee what was constructed was a new floor which was an independent…

Ram Mohan Rai, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 234BSection 54

…sfer of the asset, which yields capital gains. If the assessee had invested the money in the construction of the house within the time limit, the exemption cannot be denied on the ground that construction has not been completed [see CIT v. Praveen Kumar[2007] 290 ITR 90/[2006] 153 Taxman 138 (Mad.)]. However, the onus is on the assessee to produce sufficient material to establish the claim for exemption. In the instant case, the petitioner claimed exemption by stating that they have purchased flats with the built up area of 8050 sq.ft., along with an extent of 1807 sq.ft of undivided share in land by a document,…