How many judgments cite Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT?

41 judgments on BharatTax cite Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT (387 ITR 421), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54F, Section 139(1), Section 143(3), Section 54, Section 139(4), Section 54F(1).

Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT

387 ITR 421High Court2016#2912 most cited

What is Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT authority for?

An assessee is not entitled to the full deduction under section 54F if the capital gains were not utilized for the construction of a new house or deposited in the specified bank accounts before filing the return of income. In such cases, the exemption is restricted proportionately to the amount invested.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT · section 54F · section 54F(4) · capital gains · unutilized amount · deposit in bank account · return of income · proportionate deduction · construction of new house

Also reported as

73 Taxmann.com 2

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 54(2)section 54f(1)section 54(1)long-term capital asset section 54f date of transfer section 54 section 139(4)section 45 long term capital gain section 139(1)income-tax officer

Judgments citing Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT

SUMIT H BHAGCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1984/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

…ibed under the Act. Similarly, Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Sumit H Bhagchandani vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2017-18 - 7– Mumbai [2016] 73 taxmann.com 2 (Bombay)/[2016] 242 Taxman 189 (Bombay)/[2016] 387 ITR 421 (Bombay)/[2016] 290 CTR 496 (Bombay)[18-08-2016] has held that where assessee had filed return of income and entire amount which was subjected to capital gain tax had not been utilized for purpose of construction of new house, nor were unutilized amounts deposited in notified Bank Accounts before filing return of income, Assessing Officer rightly…

SHAZIYA MOAZZAM ALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A), MUMBAI

ITA 6302/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Shaziya Moazzam Ali Khan The Cit(A), Ward Flat No. 71, A Wing, St 19(3)(1), Piramal Andrew Apartment, Moraland Vs. Chamber, Parel Road, Mumbai-400 008. Mumbai-400 012. Pan : Amnpk2105R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RaiFor Respondent: Shri Amir H. Bohra, CA

Section 250Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)Section 54(4)Section 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “J(SMC)” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) Shaziya Moazzam Ali Khan The CIT(A), Ward Flat No. 71, A Wing, ST 19(3)(1), Piramal Andrew Apartment, Moraland Vs. Chamber, Parel Road, Mumbai-400 008. Mumbai-400 012. PAN : AMNPK2105R Appellant Respondent : Shri Amir H. Bohra, CA Assessee by : Shri Aditya Rai Revenue by : 27/11/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 04/12/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above cited appeal, Ld. AR of the appellant raised a ground that Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding tha…

AVANASIYAPPAN ESWARAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO,WARD 1(2), TIRUPPUR

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

ITA 1666/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

…set, this aspect of the matter is also restored to the files of the AO. 14. Before concluding it is to be mentioned that the Ld.DR had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant vs. CCIT reported in (2016) 387 ITR 421. The judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court had stated if the capital gains has not been utilized for the purpose of construction of new house nor if unutilized amounts :- 12 -: deposited in the bank account in terms of section 54F(4) of the Act before filing of return of income, the assessee is not entitled to deduction of unspent amount u/s.…

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

…IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI.KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year :2018-19 Shri. Sreenivasulu Sagaleti, Vs. ITO, 31/26, 4th Block, 58th Cross, Ward–2(2)(2), Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Bangalore - 562010. PAN :AHQPS5444 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 21.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appeal filed by the assessee against Order passe…

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 841/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…onstruction of the new asset. Therefore, this is a case of non-deposit in Capital Gains Account Scheme and not a case of delay of deposit in the notified account. 5.3. In the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant vs. CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 2 / 242 taxmann 189 / 387 ITR 421 (Bom.), it has been held that where the assessee had filed return of income and entire amount, which was subject to capital gain tax had not been utilized for purpose of construction of new house nor were unutilized amounts deposited in notified bank accounts in terms of Section 54F(4) before filing return of income, assessing officer rightly com…

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 PAN No. ARAPS0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. AR (Through V.C.) &Mr. Devang Gargieya, Adv., Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 04/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 06/03/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed ag…

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

…the case of Tarulata Shyam And Ors v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1977) 108 ITR 345(SC) and the A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek judgment and order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT reported in (2016) 387 ITR 421(Bom.). Similarly, ld. CIT(A) disallowed the alternative claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54F on the grounds that the assessee purchased two residential houses on 25.04.2010, and hence , on the date of transfer of original asset, the assessee was in possession of more than one residential house. The assessee had , however, stated before ld.…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Novartis India Limited v. Asst. Commissioner of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6th& 7th Floor 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire BKC M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, BKC Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 PAN: AAACH2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner of Income –Tax – 7(1) v. M/s. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known as Hindustan Ciba G…

ITO COMPANY WARD 5(1),, CHENNAI vs. VIKAS KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 498/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, (Advocate)- Ld. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…se of Kannan Chandrasekhar Vs ITO the facts of which are distinguishable from the facts of the current case. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs CIT reported in 387 ITR 421 wherein it is held that "failure to deposit the amount of consideration not utilised towards the purchase of new flat in the specified bank account before the due date of filing return of income under section 139(1) is fatal to the claim for exemption." 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act without consider…

DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE V(2),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI UTTAM KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 497/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, (Advocate)- Ld. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

ITO COMPANY WARD 5(1),, CHENNAI vs. GAUTHAM KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 496/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, (Advocate)- Ld. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

ITO COMPANY WARD 5(1), , CHENNAI vs. PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA 495/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, (Advocate)- Ld. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

SHRI RAMALINGAM NAGARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 21 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1729/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjunraj, CAFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 54Section 54(2)

…tilized amount of capital gains must be deposited in ‘Capital Gain Account Scheme’. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2016] 387 ITR 421 (Bombay). In this case, facts with regard to non-compliance of provisions of Sec.54(2) of the Act, are not in dispute. The assessee neither utilized full amount of capital gains for purchase or construction of house property before filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, nor deposited unutilized amount in ‘Capital Gain Account Scheme’.…

RAMDAS PANDHARINATH KALE,(HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 436/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 54BSection 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एक सदस्य मामला” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, PUNE श्री एस.एस. विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्याविक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आिकर अपील सं. / ITA No.436/PUN/2019 वनर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramdas Pandharinath Kale (HUF), Kalewasti, Kesanand Road, Wagholi, Pune – 412207 PAN : AAQHR7916A .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 12(4), Pune ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Abhay Avachat Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 20-09-2022 घ…

INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD-10(6), CHENNAI vs. SHRI ARUN GUPTA,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 844/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 844/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income-Tax Officer, Shri. Arun Gupta, Non-Corporate Ward -10(6), V. No. 3B, Block, Lloyds Colony, Chennai – 34. Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [Pan: Agrpa-8340-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate & Mrs. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022

For Respondent: Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate &

Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54E

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए ’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 844/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income-tax Officer, Shri. Arun Gupta, Non-Corporate Ward -10(6), v. No. 3B, Block, Lloyds Colony, Chennai – 34. Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [PAN: AGRPA-8340-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by ""यथ" क" ओर से/Re…

NEETA GOSWAMI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1584/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri B. Shanti Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P.Babu, DR

Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 1584/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Neeta Goswami, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-12(3), [PAN No. ASIPG4817D] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत् यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri B. Shanti Kumar, AR रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri A.P.Babu, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 29/09/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 17/10/2022 आदेश / OR…

SAFIQUE SADRUDDIN BALSARRA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6 (3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1783/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…he Act and prayed to allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 5. On the other hand the ld. DR, Shri M.G. Jasnani drew our attention to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT reported in [2016] 387 ITR 421 (Bombay) and argued that when the provisions under statute is clear and no necessity arises to give beneficial construction to the said provisions. He argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held there is no ambiguity in the provisions of section 54F of the Act and no occasion arises to apply liberal/beneficial construction while interpretin…

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A.&For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

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

…position of amount in capital gain account scheme. The facts of the case of assessee are exactly same and, therefore, the decision have been wrongly interpreted by Id. PCIT. b. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant vs CCIT [2016] 387 ITR 421 (Bom) [CLC 109-133] In the said case the assessee had not deposited any amount in Capital Gain Account Scheme, however, ultimately invested the entire sale consideration in residential house. The court decided the matter against the assessee. The facts of the case of assessee are exactly same. However, as is evident from the above there are two…

SHIVKUMAR LAKSHMAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3442/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3442 / Chny / 2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Shivkumar Lakshman, The Income Tax Officer, C1, 28, Apollo Lumiere, V. International Taxation – 1(2), 3Rd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 020/ Pan : Adepl1876A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Hemalatha.K, Aca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2020

For Appellant: Ms. Hemalatha.K, ACAFor Respondent: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी) "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3442 / CHNY / 2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Shivkumar Lakshman, The Income Tax Officer, C1, 28, Apollo Lumiere, v. International Taxation – 1(2), 3rd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 020/ PAN : ADEPL1876A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. Hemalatha.K, ACA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/D…

RAJAN GUNBA TELANG,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 21 , MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2440/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Subhash S. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

…na Indrakumar v/s ITO, [2012] 137 ITD 238 (Mum.); vi) Gajendra Kumar T. Agarwal v/s ITO, [2011] 11 ITR (Trib.) 640 (Mum.); vii) Anil Kumar Omkar Singh Aurora v/s ITO, ITA no.4648/ Mum./2013, dated 06.11.2013; and viii) Humayun Suleman Merchant v/s CIT, [2016] 387 ITR 421 (Bom.). 4. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, since the decision of the Assessing Officer in allowing deduction under section 54 is in consonance with the ratio laid down in the decisions cited before him, it is a possible view, hence, cannot be considered as erroneous. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, merely becaus…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3