ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri

107 ITD 327Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#3302 most cited

What is ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri authority for?

Two or more residential units with a common entrance, kitchen, and passage are considered a single residential house for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 54/54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri · Section 54 · Section 54F · single residential house · two flats · common entrance · common kitchen · aggregate consideration · capital gains exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 234ASection 234BSection 54FSection 250Section 251Section 253(1)(a)Section 270A

Issues it is cited on

section 54f(1)date of transfersection 54fsection 54section 234asection 23long term capital gaintransfersection 25section 250section 143total income

Judgments citing ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri

Mrs Kamala Ajmera, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 347/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…oversy going on in the judicial forum. While coming to this conclusion, he has 5 I.T.A. No.347/DEL/2017 referred to various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including that of the Special Bench judgment in the case of ITO vs. Sushila M. Jhaveri, reported in 107 ITD 327.  Secondly, he distinguished the judgment of Geeta Duggal (supra) on the ground that two flats purchased were adjacent to each other which in the present case is not applicable, because they are not adjacent and are at two different floors, and therefore, such a benefit is not available to the assessee as the two properties are distinct from eac…

Smt. Sukiana Parvez Ali Khan, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(3), Mohali

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1366/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mohit DhimanFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh
Section 24Section 250(6)Section 54

…emption u/s 54 in respect of the flat for which full payment has been made and the balance amount of Rs. 28,10,034/- was brought to tax as long term capital gains following the decision of Mumbai Tribunal Special Bench in the case of Sushila M Jhavri (2007) 107 ITD 327. 5. The Ld. AR made submissions as under:- (i) That the assessing Officer has allowed the claim to the appellant amounting to Rs. 27,00,000/- only against one unit of two adjoining flats purchased at Baddi. Section 54 entitles the assessee for a full deduction of Rs. 54,00,000/- against the two flat which were adjoining with each other as is evid…

Pramod Sharma, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stood dismissed

ITA 6440/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal/For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…. HC). The learned CIT(A) relied upon decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Devdas Naik ,366 ITR 12 wherein decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Sushila Jhaveri in ITA no. 2865/Mum/2002 ( reported in (2007) 107 ITD 327(Mum-SB) ) stood approved by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court by holding that the benefit can be claimed only for one house but however if the assessee has adjoining units used as one , the claim can be allowed for two adjacent units. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied upon the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri in ITA n…

ACIT, Circle-36, Kolkata vs. Smt. Reshmi P Loyalka, Kolkata

In the result, both the Cross Objection of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1763/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1763 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Goulen Hanshing, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

…y the ld AO and accordingly exemption u/s 54 of the Act was denied by the ld AO for two houses while completing the assessment. The ld AO also placed reliance on the Special Bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO vs Sushila M.Jhaveri reported in 107 ITD 327 wherein it was held that the legislature had used the word ‘a’ in section 54 and 54F. Had the legislature intended for investment in more than one asset, it could have easily used the words ‘in any residential house’ or ‘residential house or houses’ in sections 54 and 54F instead of the words ‘ a residential house’. So the clear intention of the…

ITO (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. Kavita Gupta, Mumbai

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

ITA 6884/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito (It)-3(1), Room No.114, Vs. Ms. Kavita Gupta, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Flat No. 1901-A, Sahyadri, Ballard Pier, N.M. Road, Upper Govind Nagar, Malad Mumbai – 38 (East), Mumbai – 400 069 Pan No. Anrpg 0004 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Shridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen,D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…unit, therefore, the claim of exemption under section 54 was rightly raised by her. The CIT(A) while observing as hereinabove, took a support of the order of the “Special Bench” of the Tribunal in the case of ITO-19(3)-4, Mumbai vs. Sushila M. Jhaveri (2007) 107 ITD 327 (Mum.)(SB). 5. The revenue, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), had carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, the ld. Authorised Representative (for short, 'A.R') for the assessee submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal was squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Hi…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. Shrey Guleri, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6147/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-16(1) Shri Shrey Sharma Guleri बनाम/ Room No.439, Aayakar Prime Channel Software Bhawan, 101, M.K. Road Communications P. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai 400 020 215, Kuber Complex New Link Road Andheri (West) Mumbai 400 053 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaapg4566H याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dilip V. Lakhani ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…sement is very much part and parcel of the same residential building, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court squarely applicable to the case of the assessee. The ratio laid down in the case of ITO vs. Mrs. Sushila M. Jhaveri 107 ITD 327 (Mum) (SB) (2007) where the houses were located at different places, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal held that exemption u/s 54F was available in respect of one house of the choice of the assessee. Identical ratio was laid down in ACIT vs. Sudhakar Ram [2011] 16 taxmann.com 175 (Mum) and as mentioned earlier by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court…

Jayant Dattatraya Bhalerao, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 147/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 54

…arnataka High Court; 6 ITA Nos. 146, 147 & 148/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raman Kumar Suri, 29 taxmann.com 231 (Bombay); iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Devdas Naik, 366 ITR 12 (Bombay); iv. ITO Vs. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri, 107 ITD 327 (Mumbai)(SB). 5.2 In respect of ground No. 2 raised in appeal, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.4,00,000/- in respect of compensation paid to tenant for vacating the premises. The ld. AR submitted that such expenditure is allowable. The ld. AR filed affidavit of Shri Vaman Shriniwas Kulkarni who was stated to…

Abhijit Ashok Bhalerao, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 146/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 54

…arnataka High Court; 6 ITA Nos. 146, 147 & 148/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raman Kumar Suri, 29 taxmann.com 231 (Bombay); iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Devdas Naik, 366 ITR 12 (Bombay); iv. ITO Vs. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri, 107 ITD 327 (Mumbai)(SB). 5.2 In respect of ground No. 2 raised in appeal, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.4,00,000/- in respect of compensation paid to tenant for vacating the premises. The ld. AR submitted that such expenditure is allowable. The ld. AR filed affidavit of Shri Vaman Shriniwas Kulkarni who was stated to…

Ashok Dattatraya Bhalerao, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 148/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 54

…arnataka High Court; 6 ITA Nos. 146, 147 & 148/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raman Kumar Suri, 29 taxmann.com 231 (Bombay); iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Devdas Naik, 366 ITR 12 (Bombay); iv. ITO Vs. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri, 107 ITD 327 (Mumbai)(SB). 5.2 In respect of ground No. 2 raised in appeal, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.4,00,000/- in respect of compensation paid to tenant for vacating the premises. The ld. AR submitted that such expenditure is allowable. The ld. AR filed affidavit of Shri Vaman Shriniwas Kulkarni who was stated to…

Mr. Arunkumar Nathan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1041/BANG/2017[2013 - 14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru
Section 54

…tax under Section 45 of the Act. He has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Pawan Arya Vs. CIT 200 Taxman 66, the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in th case of ITO Vs. Ms. Sushila M Jhaveri 107 ITD 327 and decision of the Chennai Benches of the Tribunal dt.4.7.2013 in the case of Sri A. Kodanda Rami Reddy Vs. ITO in ITA No.1865/C/2012. 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute as regards the purchase of two separate flats by the assessee which were located in two different areas…

ITO, Ward-3(2), Bhubaneswar vs. Gaya Santara, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal

ITA 468/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year :2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs. Gaya Santara, Plot No.63/A, 3(2), Bhubaneswar Sector-A, Zone-D, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.ADQPS 3243 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year :2008-09 Gaya Santara, Plot No.63/A, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Sector-A, Zone-D, 3(2), Bhubaneswar Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.ADQPS 3243 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, AR Revenu…

Pradipkumar P. Kanakia, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir13(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7688/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pradipkumar Purshottam Dcit, Kanakia, Circle-13(2), बनाम/ C/O- Pratap Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 18, Steel Yard House, Iron Mumbai-400020 Market, Sant Tukaram Road, Mumbai-400009 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Afvpk8451P

Section 54

…ld purchase or construct only one residential house as the phrase used in s. 54(1) was a residential house. The AO referred to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri (2007) 109 TTJ (Mumbai)(SB) 299 : (2007) 107 ITD 321 (Mumbai)(SB) in which it was held that exemption under s. 54 should be allowed only in respect of investment in one residential house. In the said case, it was pointed out, the Tribunal had observed that wherever the legislature intended that investment 4 Pradipkumar Purushottam Kanakia could be made in more than one asset, the word used was ‘an…

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

…lex flat) was purchased by a single agreement, there is a single entrance with 4 bed rooms and single kitchen, therefore should be considered as a single unit in view of the special bench decision of the Mumbai, ITAT in the case of ITO vs. Sushila M. Jhaveri (107 ITD 327). Thus the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that the duplex flat is a single house owned by the assessee on the date of transfer of original asset and deduction under section 54F of the Act is allowable. The Ld. CIT(A) also held that in view of various decisions the deduction under section 54F cannot be denied for the reason tha…

ITO WD 21(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Likhiya D Kanath, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3795/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…nd in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the fact of the present case are different form the case of Ms. 2 व"तु "क"त" एनतेरपृसेस "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Vastu Kirti Enterprises P Ltd ITA 3795/Mum/2012 Sushila N Jhaveri (107 ITD 321). In the present case the assessee are different form the case of Ms. Sushila N Jhaveri (107 ITD 321). In the present case the assessee purchased two adjacent units in the same locality in joint capacity and not two residential houses situated in different localities. 3. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds b…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Yogesh S. Rathod, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7225/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri Maurya Pratap (DR)
Section 54

…22nd floor. There is only one 3 ITA No. 7225/M/2014 - Yogesh S. Rathod. electricity meter in the said residential unit. Ld. AR of assessee further relied upon the decision of special bench of Mumbai Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri [2000] 107 ITD 327 (Mum)(SB) and further in K.G.Vyas vs. Seventh Income Tax Officer. 4. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. Section 54 of the Income-tax Act deals with the provisions for profit on sale of property used for residence which may be read as under: “54. [Subject to the provision of sub-se…

Vishal Dutt, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 878/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-(DR)
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “F” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), v. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAGPD 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Neelesh Bajaj Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-(DR) सुनवाई क" तार"…