How many judgments cite DIT v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide?

41 judgments on BharatTax cite DIT v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (15 Taxmann.com 82), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DIT v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54F, Section 54, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 45, Section 139(1).

DIT v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide

15 Taxmann.com 82High Court2011#2909 most cited

What is DIT v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide authority for?

Deduction under section 54F is permissible even if the new residential property is purchased in the name of the assessee's spouse or son, provided the capital gains have been reinvested within the stipulated time. The section requires reinvestment of capital gain, not necessarily purchase in the taxpayer's sole name.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide · section 54F · section 54 · capital gains exemption · investment in property · spouse name · reinvestment of capital gain · residential property · date of transfer

Also reported as

349 ITR 80

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 54 Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 45 Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 54f(1)section 54e section 54ec section 54b section 54f long-term capital asset date of transfer section 54 transfer of capital asset section 45 indexed cost of acquisition long term capital gain

Judgments citing DIT v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide

Smt. Pinky, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2222/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Berulal Suthar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 54Section 54F

…l 351 ITR 4 - Honorable Delhi High Court. The appellant submitted that both the Honorable High Court Rajasthan and Honorable High Court Delhi referred to the decision of Honorable High Court of Karnataka in the case of DIT vs Mrs. Jennifer Bhide ITA 169/2011 (349 ITR 80). Therefore, it should be inferred from decision of Honorable High Court of Rajasthan and Honorable High Court of Delhi that the decision of Honorable High Court of Karnataka in case of DIT vs Mrs. Jennifer Bhide ITA 169/2011 (349 ITR 80) is applicable to the instant case. Further, the assessing officer at Para 8 of the order referred to the decis…

Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…t when the entire amount has been invested by the assessee, then deduction cannot be denied solely on the ground that the name of the son of the assessee was also added in the Purchase Deed as joint owner. i) Director of Income Tax (IT) Vs. Jennifer Bhide [349 ITR 80 (Kar)] ii) Vishwasrao M. Patil Vs. ITO [ITA No.1563/PUN/2012] dated 22.01.2016. 9. With respect to the Revenue’s contention that since the assessee had sold the original asset on 20.04.2010, the time limit of two years to purchase new house was 20.04.2012 and since the assessee had acquired the new house vide agreement dated 19.03.2013 i.e., aft…

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…

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

…ct provided the investment is out of sale consideration received on sale of original asset notably the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh (P&H) 327 ITR 278 (2010), CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora 342 ITR 38 (Delhi) (2012) & DIT Vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide 15 Taxmann.com 82 (Kar)(2011). It is also argued by the appellant that if two views of possible the view favourable to the appellant is to be adopted. However, it is seen that AO has noted that the investment in purchase of new asset has been made beyond the time prescribed in section 54B of the Act and in violation of the stipulation that unutilized amount…

Bharatbhai Narshibhai Patel, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 47/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Bharatbhai Narsibhai Patel The Acit बनाम/ Prop Of M/S.Pushpam Circle-2 Vs. Creation Rajkot Mehul Textile Nagar Sant Kabir Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adppp 6615 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pravin Verma, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Verma, Sr.DR

Section 54F

…g as under: “4. I have considered carefully the submissions made by the appellant and the assessment order passed by the A.O. The A.R. Bharatbhai Narsibhai Patel vs. ACIT Asst.Year – 2009-10 has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in 349 ITR 80 to say that even if the property is registered in the name of the appellant’s wife, the benefits u/s.54F can be obtained. However, on perusal of the said judgment, it is noticed that it is rendered in a different context on different facts. Therefore, the same is not applicable to the facts of this case. As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act…

Kanaiyalal Muljibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.649/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, AR with Shri Mehul Talera, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘A’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.649/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Kanaiyalal Muljibhai Patel Vs. ITO, Ward-15(1) B-1, 53A, Sterling City Now ITO, Ward-7(1)(2) Nr.Shiv Ashish School Ahmedabad. Bopal, Ahmedabad 380058 PAN : AAMPP 6820 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divetia, AR with Shri Mehul Talera, AR Revenue by : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 14/02/2019…

Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2692/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri H.R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryawamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.1, Aabhran, I Main Road, Ward 5(2)(3), N R Colony, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 019. PAN: AHNPP 4864F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.R. Suresh, CA Respondent by : Shri Vikas Suryawamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2019 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President This appeal by the assessee is against the ord…

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

…. 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 section 54F mandates that the capital gains arising from sale should be invested by assessee in his own name for claiming benefit…

The ITO, 2(5), Indore vs. Late Shri Ram Prasad Banglewala L/H Shri Mahesh Banglewala, Indore

Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 40/IND/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No.40/Ind/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Late Shri Ram Prasad Banglewala L/H Shri 2(5), Mahesh Banglewala, Indore. 930, Bijalpur, Indore. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./Pan: Awqpb0658P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 31.05.2018

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

…the Act provided the investment is out of sale consideration received on sale of original asset notably the decisions in the case of CIT Vs Gurnam Singh, (P&H) 327 ITR 278(2010), CIT Vs Ravinder Kumar Arora,342 ITR 38(Delhi)(2012) & DIT Vs Mrs. Jennifer Bhide 15 Taxmann.com 82 -: 8 :- Late Shri. Ram Pd. Banglewala (Kar)(2011). It is also argued by the appellant that if two views are possible the view favourable to the appellant is to be adopted. The total investment in purchase of the new asset is Rs. 18929432/- which is more than the capital gains computed by the AO and hence the entire LTCG is exempt u/s 54B o…

Smt. Bhavna Hitesh Rawal, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2743/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 554F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2013-14 Smt. Bhavna Hitesh The ITO, Rawal, A-501, Ward-5(1)(1), Pratishtha Apartment, Vs Ahmedbad Nr. Bodakdev Fire (Respondent) Station, J.B. Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad PAN: ACEPR7744N (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Sunil Talati, A.R. Date of hearing : 04-12-2017 Date of pronouncement : 30-01-2018 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, arises from orde…

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

…e of an asset should be invested in some other ITA No.1916/B/16 6 asset and there is no restriction on the manner in which the same should be invested. The Appellant, in support of his contention relied upon the decision in the case of Jennifer Bhide v DIT 349 ITR 80 of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka to emphasise that once the investment is made in manner, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act. It was also contended that the legislature has not specifically mentioned in the statute that the investment of the sale proceeds should be made in the own name of the appellant and in ab…

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

…Shri Sukhram Mukati & Shri Vishnu Mukati v. ITO 3(3) Indore/ I.T.A. No. 409&410/Ind/2014/A.Y.08-09 Page 1 of 26 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE "ी सी.एम.गग", "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.409&410/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 1.Shri Sukhram Mukati V. 1. Income Tax Officer 83/3, Khatipura, Sukhila, 3(3) Indore Indore PAN: CGVPS1260D 2. Shri Vishnu Mukati 83/3, Khatipura, Sukhila, 2. Income Tax Officer 3(3) Indore Indore…

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

…54 of the Act, it was held that the word ‘assessee’ must be given a wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide (349 ITR 80) wherein it was held that where the entire consideration has flown from her husband, merely because either in the sale deed or in the bond, her husband’s name is also mentioned, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of deduction u/s 54 and 54EC of the Act. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT…

Shyam R. Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Allowed

ITA 5736/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5736/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Shyam R. Gupta Income Tax Officer Flat No-F2/703, 11(1)(4) Vs. Poonam Kunj,Poonam Nagar Ayakar Bhavan, Mahakali Craves Road, New Marine Lines, Andheri East Mumbai. Mumbai - 400093 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adqpg7610M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sambit Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54

…this regard, we are citing few judgements on record i.e. decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court [2012] 342 ITR 38 (Delhi) dated 27.09.2011 in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax V. Ravinder Kumar Arora and decided by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court [2012] 349 ITR 80 (Karn.) dated 26.09.2011 in case titled as Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) and Another Vs. Mrs.Jennifer Bhide and decdied by Hon’ble Madras High Court [2010] 235 CTR (Mad) 588 dated 12.04.2010 in case titled as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Srinivasan and Hon’ble Delhi High Court [2010] 235 CTR (Del) dated 16.08.2010 in case title…

Puranchand & Family (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2974/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2974/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Puranchand & Family (Huf), The Income Tax Officer, No.11, Lloyds Lane, V. Non-Corporate Ward 12(3), Chennai – 600 014. Chennai – 34. Pan : Aaehp3644P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sahadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per N.R.S. Ganesan: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, Chennai Dated 15.09.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri K. Balasubramanian, The Ld. Representative For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Huf, Sold 122.840 Carat Of Diamonds On 02.01.2012 For A Total Consideration Of ₹57,12,060/-. The 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sahadevan, JCIT

Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी िड.एस. सु"दर "सह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2974/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Puranchand & Family (HUF), The Income Tax Officer, No.11, Lloyds Lane, v. Non-Corporate ward 12(3), Chennai – 600 014. Chennai – 34. PAN : AAEHP3644P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri K. Balasubramanian, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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 Per C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member: This appeal is filed…

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Vishwanath Acharya, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 7232/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Shri Vishwanath Acharya A C I T – 11(1) 1701-A Wing, Brook Hill Aayakar Bhavan Towers, Near Lokhandwala Vs. M.K. Road Complex, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400058 Pan – Aagpa0144D Appellant Respondent A C I T – 16(1) Shri Vishwanath Acharya Room No. 439 1701-A Wing, Brook Hill Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Towers, Near Lokhandwala M.K. Road Complex, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400058 Pan – Aagpa0144D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…rned CIT(A) agreed with the assessee’s contentions and directed the AO to allow the assessee exemption under section 54 of the Act on facts and also by following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT(IT) vs. Jennifer Bhide (2012) 349 ITR 80 (Kar). 4.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. The facts of the matter as emanate from the record are that the assessee had purchased flats at Oshiwara, Mumbai on 12.07.2004 for total consideration of `42,73,300/- which he sold on 25.11.2009…

Vishwantah Acharaya, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 6872/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

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

…ch 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. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), it is affirmed.…

Viswanath S. Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7358/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri S. DevendraFor Respondent: Shri A. Kumbhar

Section 148Section 54

…pose and name sake only. ITA No.7358(Mum)/2014 7 However, the de-jure ownership, right, title and interest existing in the new flat shall be with the assessee. The learned relied upon the judgment in the case of DIT(Intl.Taxation) Vs Jennifer Bhide (2012) 349 ITR 80(Kar.) rendered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and in the case of CIT Vs Kamal Wahal (2013) 351 ITR 4 (Del.) rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 10. The learned AR further argued that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as well as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are later decisions therefore, the principles laid down in t…