Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT

387 ITR 421High Court2016#2908 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.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 54FSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 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 assetsection 54fdate of transfersection 54section 139(4)section 45long term capital gainsection 139(1)income-tax officer

Judgments citing Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT

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)

…cisions : i) CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [286 ITR 274 (Gau)]. ii) CIT Vs. Jagriti Aggarwal [339 ITR 610 (P&H). iii) Fathima Bai Vs. ITO [32 DTR 243 (Kar)]. He further submitted that the decision in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs. CCIT reported in 387 ITR 421 relied upon by the Ld. D.R. cannot come to the rescue of the Department and on the contrary, it favours the assessee as the facts are distinguishable because in that case assessee had filed return u/s 139(1) of the Act and the un-utilized amount of capital gains was not invested by the assessee in the Capital Gain Account Scheme before filing of…

Dinesh N. Bhanushali, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3816/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: S/Shri Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria, ld.DR
Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…1 Dinesh N.Bhanushali IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI Before Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dinesh N. Bhanushali, I.T.O., 24(1)(5), 701, Raj Villa, Jawahar Nagar Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Road, No. 17, Plot no. 317, Mumbai-400 051. Goregaon(W), Mumbai-400 062. PAN: AVOPB 8642A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: S/Shri Pratik Poddar Paras S. Savla, ld.AR Respondent by : Shri Chaitnya Anjaria, ld.DR Date of Hearing : 18.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 18 -07-2019 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member The assessee has filed t…

Madhu Hasmukh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(2)(Now Assessed by CIT-30, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stand

ITA 845/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh & Assessment Year-2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54E

…ed within stipulated time was to be exempt from tax although assessee appellant failed to technically deposit same in Capital Gains Account. The jurisdictional High Court, which is the Hon'ble HC of Bombay held in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant ((2016) 387 ITR 421 ((Bombay) that where assessee appellant 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 restricted exemption under section 54…

Smt. Birma Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

ITA 678/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 678/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14 cuke Birma Devi, I.T.O., Vs. B-21, Jadon Nagar, Near Ward 6(2), Railway Station, Durgapura, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BKCPD 2758 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gup…

Sameer Vithalrao Ghanwat, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 12(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 645/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.645/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)(b)Section 54F(4)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ एक-सदस्य मामऱा पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.645/PUN/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Sameer Vithalrao Ghanwat, 722/26, Laxmi Park Colony, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Navi Peth, Pune – 411030 …. PAN: AKPPG0286P Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Wad 12(1), Pune अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Gawali घोषणा…

Hariharan Ramasubramanian, Pune vs. ITO WD 26(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1616/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1616/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. B.N. Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “H” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1616/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri. Hariharan बिाम/ ITO WD 26(2)(1),Mumbai Ramasubramanian, A3/603, Nandan v. Prosperra, Baner Road, Baner Pune-411045 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAYPR3648H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. B.N. Rao, AR Revenue by : Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 14.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronoun…

ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5644/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito-(It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Mrs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, C/O 17Th Floor, Room No. 1727, C C Dayal & Co. Cas. Jeevan Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Udyog, 278, D.D. Road, Fort, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Acapg8593Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Cit (Dr) Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, Ar Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018. Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit(A)’]And Arises Out Of The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Grounds Of Appeals Read As Under: 1. Whether On Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Deduction Under Section 54 For Investment Of Capital Gain In Purchase Of New Residential House In Australia & Thus Allowing The Shifting

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 ITO-(IT)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Mrs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, C/o 17th floor, Room No. 1727, C C Dayal & Co. CAS. Jeevan Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Udyog, 278, D.d. Road, Fort, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400001 PAN No. ACAPG8593Q Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT (DR) Assessee by : Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, AR Date of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date of pronouncement: 27/06/2018. ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the…

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 220/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 216 to 220/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Shri N. Ragothaman, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Ravi Jewellery, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No 1, Prakasam Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFPR 6790K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 112/Chny/2017 "नधा"र…

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 219/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 216 to 220/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Shri N. Ragothaman, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Ravi Jewellery, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No 1, Prakasam Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFPR 6790K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 112/Chny/2017 "नधा"र…

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 218/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 216 to 220/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Shri N. Ragothaman, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Ravi Jewellery, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No 1, Prakasam Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFPR 6790K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 112/Chny/2017 "नधा"र…

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 217/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 216 to 220/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Shri N. Ragothaman, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Ravi Jewellery, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No 1, Prakasam Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFPR 6790K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 112/Chny/2017 "नधा"र…

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 216/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 216 to 220/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Shri N. Ragothaman, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Ravi Jewellery, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No 1, Prakasam Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFPR 6790K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 112/Chny/2017 "नधा"र…

ITO, Chennai vs. N.Ragothaman, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 112/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन गणेशन . एस . आर . , "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 216 to 220/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 Shri N. Ragothaman, The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Ravi Jewellery, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No 1, Prakasam Road, Chennai – 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: AAFPR 6790K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 112/Chny/2017 "नधा"र…

Shri. Mallappa Sharanappa Udnoor, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Gulbarga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 74/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 144Section 45Section 54Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH-SMC “ A ” BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.74/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) Shri Mallappa Sharanappa Vs. Income Tax Officer, Udnoor, Ward (2), Kalaburagi. Kusnoor Village, Tq.;& Dist. Kalaburagi. PAN AAKHM 7653 K Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Shreehari Kutsa, C.A. Respondent By : Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 22.03.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 05.05.2017. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt.31.10.2016 of Commissioner of Income Ta…

Basaribanu Mohd Rafiq Latiwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5420/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5420/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Latiwala, 12(3)(3), V. 701/702 Neelam, Aayakar Bhavan, Rizvi Complex, Mumbai. Carter Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abgpl0686G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…61 Act does not control Section 54F(1) of 1961 Act. He invited our attention to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant v. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, IT Appeal No. 545 of 2002 dated 18th August, 2016 (2016) 387 ITR 421(Bombay) and submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court has allowed deduction u/s 54F of 1961 Act made till the filing of return by the tax-payer although filed beyond the time stipulated u/s 139(1) of 1961 Act but prior to the date stipulated for filing of belated return u/s 139(4) of 1961 Act . It was submitted that section 54F of the Act is a ben…

Shri Sushil Kumar Bafna, Ujjain vs. The ITO 1(1), Ujjain

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

ITA 637/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No. 637/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 45Section 54F

…s account scheme as required under the provisions of section 54F (4) of the Act. Therefore, this amount is taxable in A.Y. 2010-11 only. This view is fortified from decision of Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT [2016] 387 ITR 421) (Bom) 2016-TIOL-1949-HC-MUM- held as under: “Failure to deposit the amount of consideration not utilized towards the purchase of new flat in the specified bank account before the due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1) is fatal to the claim for exemption. The fact that the entire amount has been paid to the developer/builder before t…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘ए’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर 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 "…

Shri Suresh Agrawal, Indore vs. The ITO -5(3), Indore

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

ITA 251/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 54B

…Page 1 of 12 Shri Suresh Agrarwal, Indore vs. ITO5 (3) /ITA No. 251/Ind/2016/A: Y: 2011-12 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण ,इ"दौर"यायपीठ ,इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE "ीडी.ट".गरा"सया ,"या"यकसद"य तथा "ीओ.पी.मीना ,लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 251 /Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Suresh Agrawal vs. I.T.O.-5(3),Indore 10 Ankur Hospital, Y N Road Indore अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "था.ले.सं./PAN:AFJPA 5130 R Shri Girish Agrawal, CA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by Shri Mohd. Javed, Sr…

Arun D. Tejuja, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6061/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6061/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Mr. Arun D. Tejuja, I.T.O. 18(1)(2), बनाम/ 17, Rishikesh Co-Op Hsg 1St Floor, V. Soc., Piramal Chamber, Plot No. 63, Mumbai 400 012. Worli Hill Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaept6984C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54F

…ew eligible asset as provided u/s 54/54F of the Act by 17-10-2005 i.e. before the date of filing of return of income with Revenue, as held to be allowable by recent judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant v. CCIT , (2016) 387 ITR 421(Bom.). Needless to say that the A.O. shall provide proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in accordance with law. We order accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 6061/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2005-06 is allowed for statistical…

Sara Trans Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3234/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3234/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sara Trans Export Corporation Ito, Ward 16(3)(4), बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, J-404, Congress House, V. P. Road, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Abdfs 1919 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhavin Parekh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vishwas Jadhav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 30.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 22.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 21.1.2015, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011- 12 Vide Order Dated 12.3.2014. 2. The Assessee’S Appeal Is Delayed By One Day. The Same Stands Explained By The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ar), The Assessee’S Counsel, During Hearing, Which Find As Reasonable. The Appeal Was, Accordingly, Admitted & Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 6

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ई” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3234/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sara Trans Export Corporation ITO, Ward 16(3)(4), बनाम/ 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir, J-404, Congress House, V. P. Road, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. ABDFS 1919 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Bhavin Parekh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Vishwas Jadhav सुनवाई क" तार"ख…