Jaswant Rai v. CWT

107 ITR 477High Court1977#6222 most cited

What is Jaswant Rai v. CWT authority for?

The Revenue cannot apply different standards to different assessees when accepting the correctness of a judicial decision, without just cause.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jaswant Rai v. CWT · 107 ITR 477 · different yardstick · same facts · different assessees · judicial precedent · consistency in assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 10Section 13(2)Section 148Section 148A(1)(d)Section 148A(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 54long term capital gainsection 143(3)

Judgments citing Jaswant Rai v. CWT

URMILA DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2) (1) GZB., GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2768/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2015-16 Urmila Devi, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(1), R-2/44, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Pan: Agcpd5389H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Saif Ali, Adv. (Through Vc) & Shri Pranav Menon, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi Order Dated 12.03.2025 Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On The Following Grounds:- 1. That The Order U/S. 250 Passed By The Cit(A) Is Bad In Law. 2. That The Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Passing Order U/S. 250 With Pre- Conceived Motion & Without Appreciating Material On Records. 3. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Exemption Amounting To Rs. 2442775/- Claimed U/S. 54 Of The Act In Respect Of Ltcg For Investment On The Construction Of The House. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Report Of The Valuer In Support Of The Construction Of The House For Claim Of Exemption U/S. 54 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Saif Ali, Adv. (Through VC) &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 148A(1)(d)Section 250Section 54

…d upon the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Bansal vs. ACIT in ITA 1882/Del/2022 (AY 2019-20) vide order dated 25.8.2023 and the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Shri Jaswant Rai vs. CWT, Patiala (1977) 107 ITR 477. Per contra, ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have heard both the sides and perused the records. I note that the assessee has challenged the assessment of Rs. 24,42,775/- as income from LTCG of the assessee. The assessee has claimed that the entire capital gain was offered in the hands of her husband and has furnished…

RAMESHCHANDRA CHHABILDAS JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3520/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(x)

…ly as has been held in a series of decisions  Rajeshkumar Shantilal Patel v. ITO (127 taxmann.com 342),  Pankaj Inder Wadhwa v. ITO for A.Y. 2019-20 in ITA No. 1733/Mum/2025,  CIT v. Kumararani Smt. Meenakshi Achi (292 ITR 624) (Mad),  Jaswant Rai v. CWT (107 ITR 477) (P&H),  Ms. Viramati H. Dalal v. ITO [58 taxmann.com 331 (Mum-Trib)],  Pradeep Bansal v. ACIT [155 taxmann.com 663 (Del-Trib),  Sangram J. Patel v. DCIT [ITA No. 377/Ahd/2018 (Ahd-Trib)],  Babubhai Shantilal Solanki v. ITO [ITA No. 1893/Ahd/2019 (Ahd-Trib)],  Shri Vipul Krishna Ashtekar and Ors. v. DCIT [ITA No. 1062/PN/2013 (Pune-Trib)], …

KAMLESH KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-40(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7841/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…also relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench at Mumbai order dated 14.05.2025 in the case of Mrs. Ratan Mahendra Jain Vs. ITO 174 taxmann.com 909 and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Jaswant Raj Vs. CWT 107 ITR 477 13. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the during the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act of an amount of Rs. 1,13,04,000/- from long term capital gain arising…

RITA GOEL,BANGLORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1230/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Hema Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54Section 54FSection 55A

…of the firm opinion that the revenue cannot adopt a different yardstick in the case of present assessee. 6.1. Our view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jaswant Roy vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax reported in 107 ITR 477(P&H). Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal 249 ITR 219 (SC) has held that it is not open to the revenue to accept judgement in the case of an assessee and challenge the correctness in the case of other assessees without just cause. 7. Further, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal recently in th…

SH. CHANDRA KANT CHAHAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2813/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Alok jain, Adv.; &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 50C

…aluation in assessee’s case for computing long term capital gain for his 1/6th share for the very same assessment year i.e. 2011-12. 9. Our view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jaswant Rai Vs. CWT [(1977) 107 ITR 477 (P & H) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under:- “11. It is no doubt true that assessment for a particular year is final and conclusive between the parties only and the decision given in an assessment for an earlier year is not binding either on the assessee or on the department in a subsequent year, but this is not an absolute rule. In C…

SUBRAMANYAM THANNIRU,NELLORE vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 348/HYD/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 348/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Subramanyam Thanniru, Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Nellore Income Tax, [PAN No. AQOPT0263A] Central Circle, Tirupati अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 01/02/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on:…

SHRI BABUBHAI SHANTILAL SOLANKI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1893/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 50CSection 54FSection 55A

…Act, in and by which, the proposal to revise the assessment in the case of other co-owner was dropped, finding that there was no justification to reject the value adopted by the assessee. The Tribunal, in the light of the decision in Jaswant Rai v. CWT [1977] 107 ITR 477 (Punj. & Har.), held that differential treatment cannot be met out to another co-owner while making the assessment of the same property or while valuing the same property. 4.3 The learned counsel for the revenue is not in a position to satisfy us, as to how the Commissioner of Income-tax dropped the proceedings initiated under I.T.A No. 1893/Ahd/…

KUM. NALINI SURRENDRABHAI PATEL,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1013/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, AR for Shri M.J. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

…Act, in and by which, the proposal to revise the assessment in the case of other co-owner was dropped, finding that there was no justification to reject the value adopted by the assessee. The Tribunal, in the light of the decision in Jaswant Rai v. CWT [1977] 107 ITR 477 (Punj. & Har.), held that differential treatment cannot be met out to another co-owner while making the assessment of the same property or while valuing the same property. 4.3 The learned counsel for the revenue is not in a position to satisfy us, as to how the Commissioner of Income-tax dropped the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the…

ADITI AGGARWAL,AMBALA CANTT vs. PR.CIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 21/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…under section 263 of the Act. Therefore the valuation of the same property cannot be valued differently amongst the co-owners. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jaswant Rai Vs. CWT Patiala reported at 107 ITR 477. 6.5 It was further submitted that the order has been passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT in haste which is the violation of principles of natural justice. It was pointed out that the first notice appearing in e-portal was dt. 17/03/2021 fixing the case for 18/03/2021 and the order under section 263 was passed on 19/03/2021. As such the inadequate time all…

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…and as per the books of accounts of BHRC which in turn was built up on account of recovery of amount advanced as hundi loans against which income was surrendered during survey action. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Jaswant Rai (1977) 107 ITR 477 has held that “it was not open to department to adopt different yard sticks in the case of different assesses where the issue of addition to wealth pertained to the same common asset”. Accordingly here also the hundi which were seized in one common survey account of one common parties office location i.e. in the case of assessee as well as BHRC…

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…and as per the books of accounts of BHRC which in turn was built up on account of recovery of amount advanced as hundi loans against which income was surrendered during survey action. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Jaswant Rai (1977) 107 ITR 477 has held that “it was not open to department to adopt different yard sticks in the case of different assesses where the issue of addition to wealth pertained to the same common asset”. Accordingly here also the hundi which were seized in one common survey account of one common parties office location i.e. in the case of assessee as well as BHRC…

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…and as per the books of accounts of BHRC which in turn was built up on account of recovery of amount advanced as hundi loans against which income was surrendered during survey action. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Jaswant Rai (1977) 107 ITR 477 has held that “it was not open to department to adopt different yard sticks in the case of different assesses where the issue of addition to wealth pertained to the same common asset”. Accordingly here also the hundi which were seized in one common survey account of one common parties office location i.e. in the case of assessee as well as BHRC…

SHRI GANPATBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 398/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 55(2)(ii)

…arly situated co-sharer with a higher rate of tax. If such an action on the part of the assessing authorities sanctioned, it would militate against the principle of equality of law as enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution, vide Jaswant Rai v. CWT [1977] 107 ITR 477 (Punj. & Har.). 6. Applying the ratio laid down in Jaswant Rai's case (supra), to the facts of the case on hand would lead to the firm conclusion that the assessee, who also a co- owner of the property, is entitled to the benefit enjoyed by the other co-owner, whose valuation of the same property, at the same rate as that of the assessee, was acc…

SUKUMAR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 24(3), NEW DELHI

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6074/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 6074/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2014-15) Sukumar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Ward 24(3) New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AANCS9800L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A .No. 6072/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2014-15) Sanskriti Traces (P) Ltd. Vs ITO C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Ward 24(3) New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAQCS8755B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. P. C. Yadav, Advocate Respondent by Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2018 Date of Pr…

SANSKRITI TRADEX (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 24(3), NEW DELHI

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 6074/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2014-15) Sukumar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Ward 24(3) New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AANCS9800L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A .No. 6072/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2014-15) Sanskriti Traces (P) Ltd. Vs ITO C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Ward 24(3) New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAQCS8755B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. P. C. Yadav, Advocate Respondent by Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2018 Date of Pr…

M/S. ISMAIL ABDULKARIM BALWA,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT RG 24(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2680/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2005-06) Mr. Ismail Abdulkarim Balwa Vs. Dcit, Range-24(3), Mumbai A.K. Industrial Estate, (Respondent) Opp. A.K. Tower, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 62 Pan : Aabpb7570M (Appellant) : (A.Y : 2005-06) Mr. Hussein Abdulkarim Balwa Vs. Dcit, Range-24(3), Mumbai A.K. Industrial Estate, (Respondent) Opp. A.K. Tower, S.V. Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai - 62 Pan : Aabpb7572K (Appellant)

For Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 32

…e case of different assessees by the Income-tax authorities cannot be overemphasised. There are several judicial pronouncements in support of the aforesaid proposition. For instance, in the case before the Hon'ble Punjab High Court in the case of Jaswant Rai, 107 ITR 477 (Pun & Har) where valuation of property in the hands of one co-sharer for the same assessment year had been valued at a particular figure, it was ruled that a higher figure could not be adopted by the income-tax authorities in the case of other co-sharer. Similarly, in the case of S. Muthukarupan, 163 Taxman 45 (Mad) before the Hon'ble Madras Hig…

MEHERU MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1807/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…ar treatment should be given in the hands of present assessee also, as per the mandate of the law. Reliance was placed in this regard on the judgments in CIT vs Kumararani Meenakshi 292 ITR 624 (Mad), Shri Madhu Tyagi vs DCIT 19 SOT 612 Del, Jaswantrai vs CWT 107 ITR 477 at page 481 (P&H). It was also argued by the Ld. Counsel that incorrect sale instances have been adopted by the Ld. CIT(A), and if correct sale instances are adopted, it would be clear that similar properties have been sold at a much lesser rate and, therefore, no addition at all deserves to be made. It was also submitted that benefit of deprecia…

DILNAWAZ SAM VARIAVA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 5216/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…ar treatment should be given in the hands of present assessee also, as per the mandate of the law. Reliance was placed in this regard on the judgments in CIT vs Kumararani Meenakshi 292 ITR 624 (Mad), Shri Madhu Tyagi vs DCIT 19 SOT 612 Del, Jaswantrai vs CWT 107 ITR 477 at page 481 (P&H). It was also argued by the Ld. Counsel that incorrect sale instances have been adopted by the Ld. CIT(A), and if correct sale instances are adopted, it would be clear that similar properties have been sold at a much lesser rate and, therefore, no addition at all deserves to be made. It was also submitted that benefit of deprecia…

Jaswant Rai v. CWT (107 ITR 477) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax