Jai Narayan v. ITO

306 ITR 335High Court2008#7395 most cited

What is Jai Narayan v. ITO authority for?

Investment in a new asset must be in the name of the assessee to fulfil the requirements of Section 54F. If the investment is not in the assessee's name, they are not entitled to claim the exemption.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jai Narayan v. ITO · 306 ITR 335 · Section 54F · capital gains exemption · investment in new asset · name of assessee · denial of exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 54BSection 54FSection 115BBESection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Judgments citing Jai Narayan v. ITO

Shyam Sunder, Gururgam vs. ITO ( Circle 4(1), Gurgram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4779/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 54F

…e claim under section 54B, the Assessing Officer noted that the agricultural land was purchased jointly in the name of the assessee and his wife. Relying upon the judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jai Narain Vs. ITO 306 ITR 335 the Assessing Officer held that exemption under section 54B is allowable only when the new agricultural land is purchased in the name of the assessee himself and not in the name of a third person, including spouse or children. Consequently, the exemption claimed in respect of such jointly purchased properties was disallowed. The Assessing Officer…

Ashok Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward1(5), Gurgaon

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1639/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआअसं.1639/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2015-16) Ashok Kumar, H.No. M-231, South City-1, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Alypk-0003-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Gurgaon, Haryana Assessee By : None Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 11/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.12.2018, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. A Perusal Of Appeal File Shows That The Appeal Was Filed In The Year 2019 & Thereafter, The Appeal Was Listed For Hearing On Fifteen Dates. On Most Of The Dates Fixed For Hearing None Appeared To Represent The Assessee & On Some Dates Wherever Representative Of The Assessee Appeared, Adjournment Was Sought. It Seems

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 69

…ee’s claim of deduction on the ground that for claiming deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, the new asset should have been purchased in the name of the assessee. The AO in support of his view placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case Jai Naryan vs. ITO, 306 ITR 335 (P&H.) 3.1. The AO also made addition of Rs.16,45,000/- u/s. 69 of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee explained 3 before the AO, that the cash deposits are from earlier bank withdrawals. As per the assessee’s contention, the assessee has withdrawn Rs.72,00,000/- from his Union Bank o…

Achal Kumar Malhotra, Haryana vs. Pr. CIT, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 455/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, ADvFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 455/DEL/2022 [A.Y. 2012-13] Shri Achal Kumar Malhotra Vs. The Pr. C.I.T. V-17/17, DLF Phase -3 Faridabad Gurgaon PAN : AEVPM 1744 G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, ADv Shri Sahil Agarwal, CA Department By : Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. PCIT,…

Braham Prakash, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6188/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 54BSection 54F

…eriod of two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid." 2.2.2 Hon'bie Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jai Narain V ITO 306 ITR 335 held as under : "In interpreting the words contained in a statute, the Court has not only to look at the words but also to look at the context and the object of such words relating to such matter and interpret the meaning intended to be conveyed by the use of the words under the circumstances. The word "assessee" occurring in s. 54B must be inter…

Mr.M.George Joseph vs. Dy.Commissioner of Incomet Tax Officer

In the result, order of the

ITA/238/2015HC Karnataka12 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54F

…It is also urged that exemption clause should be interpreted strictly. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to 'COMMISSIONER OF CUTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI VS. DILIP KUMAR & CO', (2018) 68 GST 39, 'JAI NARAYAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER', 306 ITR 335 (P & H), 'PRAKASH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS', 312 ITR 40 (MUMBAI) and 'VIPIN MALIK (HUF) VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2009) 330 ITR 0309 (DEL). 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have carefully perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant extract of Section 54F of…

ITO, W-4(3), Chandigarh vs. Smt. Rachna Arora, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1112/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT
Section 250(6)Section 54Section 54B

…relative such as a wife or child. (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)'s order is not perverse and in contravention of jurisdictional division bench decision in the case of Jai Narayaii Vs Income Tax Officer, [2008] 306 ITR 335 (P&H) wherein it was held that a reading of section 54B of the Act nowhere suggests that legislature intended to advance the benefit of the said section to an assessee who purchased the agriculture land in the name of a third person. (vi) It is prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the Assessing officer may be restored. (vi…

Randhir Singh, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6394/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54B

…mean that the investment in the land is not made by the assessee. As such, there was due compliance of the provisions of section 54 B. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in placing reliance upon the findings of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as reported in 306 ITR 335 and not following the later judgments of other Hon’ble High Court Decisions and Hon’ble Delhi ITAT decision in TTA No. 5456/Del./20i4. 5. That the Worthy CIT(A) has failed to consider the fact that agricultural land, though, purchased in the name of the wife, but assessee is the absolute owner of the same since the entire purchase consideration i…

Jagjit Singh, Panipat vs. Pr.CIT, Karnal

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 2777/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 54B

…d. 4. The A.O. has wrongly allowed the exemption claimed by the assesses u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act by overlooking the provisions of section 54B of the income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jai Narain Vs ITO 306 ITR 335 has held that the purchase of agricultural land by the assessee in his son’s or grandson’s name cannot be entitled to exemption under section 54B of the Act. The Court held that section 54B nowhere suggests that the legislature intended to advance the benefit of the said section to an assessee who purchases agricultural land even in the name of a…

Shri Bilas Chand, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(1), Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 399/ASR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Apr 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 399/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. J. K. Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 24Section 80CSection 80E

…lved, i.e., even if the present were not reassessment proceedings. On merits, without issuing any final findings, it may be mentioned that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has expressed a different view per its’ decisions, as in Jai Narayan v. ITO [2008] 306 ITR 335 (P&H) and CIT v. Dinesh Verma [2015] 133 Taxmann 409 (P&H), discountenancing the view expressed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Mad) in upholding the exemption u/s. 54 (on the purchase of a residential house by an assessee in the name of his wife) on capital gains arising to him on the sale of his resid…

Om Prakash Rasoria, Alwar vs. ITO, Alwar

ITA 46/JPR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CA and Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Seema Meena,JCIT - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 147Section 54B

…ation by the assessee for the purpose of new asset have been left untouched i.e. their scope remains unchanged. 5.7 For this purpose, it would be relevant to refer to a judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jai Narayan vs ITO, 306 ITR 335 – Capital Gains-Exemption-Sale of agricultural land and purchase of agricultural land-condition precedent for exemption-New asset purchased must be in the name of assessee himself- Assessee purchasing land in name of son or grandson-Not entitled to exemption under section 54B-Incom-tax Act, 1961. 5.8 Accordingly, I hold that the purchase of land…

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

…Shyamu Bai (Rs.33,32,026), son Shri Jitendra (Rs.3,14,250) and son`s wife Smt. Komal (daughter in law) copy of purchase deeds (PB-51 to 123) filed. However, CIT (A), relying on the decisions in the case of Kalya [2012] 251 CTR 174 (Raj), Jai Narain [2008] 306 ITR 335 (P&H) and Gnata Vijay Laxmi [2013] 37 taxmann.com 263 (Vishakhapatnam-Trib) has denied the deduction under Shri Sukhram Mukati & Shri Vishnu Mukati v. ITO 3(3) Indore/ I.T.A. No. 409&410/Ind/2014/A.Y.08-09 Page 6 of 26 section 54B on the ground that name of the appellant does not appear in purchase deeds of new agricultural lands. Accordingly…

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

…o domain and/or right on the property, which disentitled him to claim the exemption. Apart from the aforesaid decision of Prakash Vs ITO & Ors, the Assessing Officer has also relied upon the decision of Punjab & Haryana Court in the case of Jai Narayan Vs ITO 306 ITR 335 and Kalya Vs CIT 251 CTR 1474 of Rajasthan High Court. 5.2 Respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court[‘s decision in the case of Prakash Vs ITO & Ors (supra) and other decisions cited by the Assessing Officer I am of the view that the appellant s not entitled for exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer is fully justified in d…

D.Devadass, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2047/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. K. Meenakshisundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. B. Lakshminarayanan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…d be purchased in the name of assessee and relied on the following decisions. ‘’1. ITO vs. Prakash Timaji Dhanjode (ITAT, Nagpur) 81 TTJ 694 - Purchase in the name of adopted son. 2. Ram Kishan vs. ITO 2007-TIOL -178-ITAT-Del. 3. Jai Narayan vs. ITO (P & H) 306 ITR 335 - Purchase in the name of son and grandson. 4. Prakash vs. ITO (Mum) 220 CTR 249; 312 ITR 40 - Purchase in the name of adopted son.’’ and rejected the claim of Sec.54F of the Act and also confirmed investment in property as undisclosed investment of "97,82,000/- and the difference in bank deposits and sale consideration "21,53,000/-. The ld. C…

Madhav Ramchandra Karode, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3443/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2015AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…ted that the deed of purchase reflected the name of the assessee’s son Shri Ashok Karode first, followed by the name of assessee as the second holder. He then disallowed the claim placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Jai Narayan Vs. ITO, 306 ITR 335(P&H) and Prakash Vs. ITO (2008) 173 Taxmann 311 (Bom) and observing that in order to qualify for exemption the asset should be in the name of the assessee only. 4. By the impugned order the CIT(A), allowed 50% of deduction on the plea that in the new house so purchased the assessee has also included the name of his son. Against this order of CIT(…

M/S Sri, M. George Joseph, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 13/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.R. Suresh, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivakar,JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…oes not fulfill the requirements of the provisions of section 54F. The fact that the investment in the new asset should be in the name of the assessee has been reiterated by the judicial pronouncements laid down in the following decisions. Jai Narayan Vs. ITO 306 ITR 335 (P&H) Prakash Vs. ITO 312 ITR 40 (Mum) Vipin Malik (HUF) Vs. CIT 330 ITR 309 (Del) Considering the facts and the legal propositions laid down above these grounds are dismissed.” 5.3.1 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee filed written submissions vide letter dt.24.12.2014, virtually reiterating the written submissions…

Jai Narayan v. ITO (306 ITR 335) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax