Fibre Board 367 ITR 596 (SC) and Raesh Narhari Jakhadi v. ITO

41 ITD 368Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1992#10870 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54esection 55asection 54eclong-term capital assetsection 13(2)section 53asection 53section 54bwithin four yearsfresh tangible materialsection 55

Judgments citing Fibre Board 367 ITR 596 (SC) and Raesh Narhari Jakhadi v. ITO

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGARAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIK.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITAno.76/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Sushila Bhaurao Deshmukh no.3, Suboda Colony ……………. Appellant VidarbhaMahavidyalaya Road Amravati 444 604 PAN – AIWPD6908J v/s Principal Commissioner ……………. Respondent of Income Tax, Nagpur Assessee by :ShriK.P. Dewani Revenue by :Shri Sandeep Salunke Date of Hearing – 11/09/2024 Date of Order – 20/09/2024 O R D E R PERK.M. ROY, A.M. The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the impugned order dated 15/03/2022, passed under…

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

…der sale-agreement and the Courts have allowed exemption u/s 54B even though the investment was made before registration of sale-deed: (a) Dharmendra J. Patel Vs. DCIT (2023) 152 Taxmann.com 465 (ITAT, Ahmedabad) (b) Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi Vs. ITO (1992) 41 ITD 368 (ITAT, Pune) (c) Smt. Narayan F. Patel Vs. PCIT (2023) 152 Taxmann.com 53 (ITAT, Surat) – It followed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Mrs. Parveen P Bharucha Vs. Union of India WP No. 10437 of 2011 dated 27.06.2012 (Para No. 12 of order). 12.1 Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue contended that the language of section 54B is very plain…

ITO 24(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. MOHMMED IQBAL MOHD. AFAQUE KHAN, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1421/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 24(2)(5) V. Shri Mohammed Iqbal Mohd. Afaque Khan A-602, Plot No. 447 Room No. 611, Piramal Chambers Highland Park Chs Ltd., Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Opp. Morarji Takka, Panvel -410206 Pan: Aacpk7522M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri M.P. Ahuja

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Ahuja
Section 143(2)Section 68

…arlier paragraphs, out of the 16 Gat numbers of the land sold by the assessee, as per the Table submitted by the appellant reproduced above and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi 41 ITD 368(Pune) wherein it was held that if the land has been used or the whole of the immediately preceding year and some days of the earlier to the preceding year the requirement of section 54B would be satisfied, I hold in the interest of justice and fair play that the Gat nos. wherein agricultural land was held for 18 months and more would be fulfilling…

SHRI BHADRESH SURYAKANT PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2012-13 Shri Bhadresh Suryakant Patel, Income Tax Officer, A-73, Mathura Nagari, Vs Ward-1(2)(3), Behind Nand Society, Vadodara Old Padra Road, Vadodara Pan : Aklpp 1848 G अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/12/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals-5), Vadodara [“Cit(A) In Short] Dated 25.02.2019 Passed For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.11,41,430/- Claimed Under Section 54B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr DR
Section 54B

…tural Land. It can be seen from above details given. Hence requirement of section 54B are satisfied. Whatever amount received against sale is invested for Purchase of Land. Appellant has relied on following rulings:- (i) Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi v. ITO [1992] 41 ITD 368 (Pune-Trib.) (ii) Parveen P. Bharucha v/s CIT212 Taxman 166(Bom.) (iii) CIT v/s Ms Jagriti Aggarwal reported in 339 ITR 610 (P&H) (iv) CIT Rohtak v/s Shri Jagtar Singh Chawla reported in LD/61/82 Held, Where assessee has proved payment of substantial amount of sale consideration for purchase of a residential property within extended period of lim…

SHRI ATUL K. PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-3, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 267/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.267/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Atul K. Patel, V Principal Commissioner Of Income B-34, Kalpana Society-2, Rander Road, Tax-3, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura S. Adajan Patiya, Surat. Gate, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ackpp 4749 F (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

…aimed by the assessee is correct & the same is not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. In support of the contention that deduction is available under the above facts, reliance is placed on ITAT Pune bench decision in the case of Ramesh N Jakhadi v. ITO-41 ITD 368 (Pune). In this case law, reliance has been placed on CBDT circular no. 359 dated 10/05/1983 issued in connection with relief u/s 54E of the Act. It was observed that logic in aforesaid circular issued in connection with section 54E would apply with equal force to relief u/s 54B also. Reliance is also placed on another decision of ITAT Chennai Ben…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT vs. M/S. REGENT CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 190/SRT/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Dy.Commissioner Of Income- M/S Regent Corporation, Tax, Circle-2(3),Room No.612, Regent Residency, Near Vs Aaykar Bhavan,Majura Gate, Saurabh Society, Pal, Surat-395001 Surat-395009 Pan : Aaofm 0193 J Revenue / Appellant Assessee /Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 80I

…nd in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Surat-1 vs. M/s Sanidhya in Tax Appeal 6 M/s Regent Corporation No.827 of 2019 dated 03.02.2020. Ld. AR of the assessee also field the copies of the following case law:-  Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi vs. ITO (1992) 41 ITD 368 (Pune)  Rahul G. Patel vs. DCIT Cir-1(2) (2018) 97 taxmann.com 598 (Ahd- Trib.)  Mrs. Parveen P Bharucha vs. DCIT, Cir-2 Pune (2012) 28 taxmann.com 274 (Bom)  ACIT vs. Dr. S. Balasundaram ITA No.1832/Mds/2012 dated 27.05.2013 7. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the order of lower authorities. We find that the case of as…

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…out of the advance consideration received under the collaboration agreement. The assessee relied on CBDT circular number 359 dated 10 May 1983 and decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in 384 ITR 325 and the decision of the coordinate bench reported in 41 ITD 368. The learned AO after noting the provisions of Section 54EC held that assessee has not invested the amount of ₹ 50 lakhs each in Rural Electrification Corp bonds and National Highway authority of India Bonds within the stipulated period of six months after the date of such transfer of the capital asset, as the transfer deed of the capital asset wa…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…out of the advance consideration received under the collaboration agreement. The assessee relied on CBDT circular number 359 dated 10 May 1983 and decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in 384 ITR 325 and the decision of the coordinate bench reported in 41 ITD 368. The learned AO after noting the provisions of Section 54EC held that assessee has not invested the amount of ₹ 50 lakhs each in Rural Electrification Corp bonds and National Highway authority of India Bonds within the stipulated period of six months after the date of such transfer of the capital asset, as the transfer deed of the capital asset wa…

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…out of the advance consideration received under the collaboration agreement. The assessee relied on CBDT circular number 359 dated 10 May 1983 and decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in 384 ITR 325 and the decision of the coordinate bench reported in 41 ITD 368. The learned AO after noting the provisions of Section 54EC held that assessee has not invested the amount of ₹ 50 lakhs each in Rural Electrification Corp bonds and National Highway authority of India Bonds within the stipulated period of six months after the date of such transfer of the capital asset, as the transfer deed of the capital asset wa…

LATE MANISHBHAI NAGINDAS GAJJAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for in ITA

ITA 1335/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1335/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2011-12 Late Manishbhai Nagindas Gajjar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through L/H Illaben Manishbhai Ward- 6(3) Surat Gajjar, 316Kh Luhar Mohhallo , Palgam, Chaurasi Surat 359009 Pan: Aovpg 1860K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 55A

…t.Ilaben Manishbhai v. ITO-WD-6(3) Surat /I.T.A. No.1335 & 1336/Ahd/2016/A.Y:11-12 Page 14 of 17 taxmann.com 220 Kolkata Tribunal, (PB-14 to 20) and decision of Supreme Court in the case of Fibre Board 367 ITR 596 (SC) and Raesh Narhari Jakhadi v. ITO [1992] 41 ITD 368 (Pune) (PB- 21 to 24) wherein it was held that where investment made prior to date of transfer out of earnest money or advanced money would also be eligible and should be considered as investment made out of sale proceeds for the purpose of section 54B of the Act. 17. The ld. Sr. D.R. supported the order of CIT (A). 18. We have heard the rival s…