K.C. Kaushik v. Income Tax Officer

185 ITR 499High Court1990#9021 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54esection 55asection 54ecsection 13(2)long-term capital assetsection 53asection 53within four yearsfresh tangible materialsection 55circle rate

Judgments citing K.C. Kaushik v. Income Tax Officer

ANITA JAYANT OSWAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 769/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.769/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anita Jayant Oswal, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Banglow No.1, Kumar Elite, Lane No.4, 110, Koregaon Park, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaapo3272A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Naresh Kumar : Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2018 For The Assessment Years 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Respectfully Submits That The Appellant May Please Be Allowed To Take The Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-13, Pune In Appeal No Cit(A)-13/16-17/593 Dated 15/02/2018 For A.Y. 2014-15. (1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld Ao In Rejecting The Claim Of Rs 31,79,890 Out Of The Total Claim Of Rs 1,24,71,110 Made U/S 54F Of The It Act-1961. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Or All Of The Above Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 54Section 54F

…units placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Devdas Naik, 49 taxmann.com 30 (Bom.). The ld. CIT(A) further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of K.C. Kaushik vs. ITO, 185 ITR 499 (Bom.) held that the appellant is entitled to claim of deduction only in respect of one flat and proceeded to examine the dates of investments made in the purchase of new flats and concluded vide para 5.3 of his order that the appellant is entitled for deduction of Rs.92,91,220/- u/s 54 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CI…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD vs. STOUVANT PITTIE, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 691/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri G.Rama Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Shri T.Sunil Goutam, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…,53,178/-. 3.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in considering the deduction u/s 54F for the flats situated in all nine independent blocks, whereas deduction is allowed only for one block vide Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of KC Kaushik Vs. PB Rane, Fifth ITO (1990) 185 ITR 499(Bom). 4.The facts of the cited cases do not apply to the instant case of the assessee. 5.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in treating non-refundable deposit of Rs.3 Crores as taxable under the head capital Gain. 6.Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing”. 3. We next note that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion deciding both the foregoing t…

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…acent to each Page 10 of 53 other and are not a single dwelling unit, as one flat is situated at Mumbai and the another said residential house constructed by the assessee is situated in Delhi. He relied on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in 185 ITR 499 wherein it has been held that the exemptions allowable only against one of the house property. Therefore he rejected the claim of the exemption u/s 54 of the income tax act in respect of second property [ flat at Mumbai], however he allowed deduction u/s 54 with respect to the property constructed at 19 Kautilya Marg for Rs 1,70,00,000/- . 25. Wi…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…acent to each Page 10 of 53 other and are not a single dwelling unit, as one flat is situated at Mumbai and the another said residential house constructed by the assessee is situated in Delhi. He relied on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in 185 ITR 499 wherein it has been held that the exemptions allowable only against one of the house property. Therefore he rejected the claim of the exemption u/s 54 of the income tax act in respect of second property [ flat at Mumbai], however he allowed deduction u/s 54 with respect to the property constructed at 19 Kautilya Marg for Rs 1,70,00,000/- . 25. Wi…

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…acent to each Page 10 of 53 other and are not a single dwelling unit, as one flat is situated at Mumbai and the another said residential house constructed by the assessee is situated in Delhi. He relied on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in 185 ITR 499 wherein it has been held that the exemptions allowable only against one of the house property. Therefore he rejected the claim of the exemption u/s 54 of the income tax act in respect of second property [ flat at Mumbai], however he allowed deduction u/s 54 with respect to the property constructed at 19 Kautilya Marg for Rs 1,70,00,000/- . 25. Wi…

ACIT-25(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VISHAL R. SUCHAK, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2051/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – 25(3) V. Shri Vishal R. Suchak Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor 302, Hareshitchha Chs Pratyakshkar Bhavan Ns Road – 4, Jvpd Scheme Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Juhu, Vile Parle (W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 056

For Appellant: Shri Vijay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Harkamal Sohi Sandhu
Section 2(14)Section 45Section 54Section 54F

…at different places, we find that this issue has been decided against the assessee by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of ITO v. Ms. Sushila Jhaveri (supra). We also find that in the case of K.C. Kaushik v. P.B. Rane, Income Tax Officer [185 ITR 499] the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has taken a similar view. 9 C.O.No. 104/MUM/2019 Shri Vishal R. Suchak 14. We observe that the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the exemption u/s. 54 of the Act to investment made only in one residential house observing as under: - “5.6 The condition under section 54 laid down in the case of purchase of the residential house i…

M/S PRAMOD SAHAI BHATNAGAR HUF,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

ITA 517/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54ESection 54F

…of the property is relevant. The residential house is distinct from a residential building and the distinction is only use and purpose of the residential building. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of K.C. Kaushik vs. P.B. Rane, Fifth Income Tax Officer 185 ITR 499 while considering the term a residential house U/s 54 of the Act and has held as under:- “Evidently, relief is not available under the section in respect of capital gains arising on the transfer of any and every capital asset. Relief is available only if the capital asset is such that its income is chargeable under the head “income from house…

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Section 45Section 54

…accordance with the provisions of this section. Such assessee can invest capital gains for purchase of residential building/house to seek exemption of the capital gains tax. 2.5. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in K.C. Kaushik vs. Income Tax Officer 185 ITR 499 (Bom) held as under: 8 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal “1. The petitioner is in the service of the Bank of Baroda. He purchased a flat in Suvarnadeep Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short "Surnadeep"), Santacruz, Bombay, on March 21, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 49,140 for the purpose of his residence. He was residing in that flat On October 24,…

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

Section 54

…ovisions of this section. Such assessee can invest capital gains for purchase of residential building/house to seek exemption of the capital gains tax. 9 Shri Shashanka Ghosh 2.5. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in K.C. Kaushik vs. Income Tax Officer 185 ITR 499 (Bom) held as under: “1. The petitioner is in the service of the Bank of Baroda. He purchased a flat in Suvarnadeep Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short "Surnadeep"), Santacruz, Bombay, on March 21, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 49,140 for the purpose of his residence. He was residing in that flat On October 24, 1979, he sold the flat for Rs…

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 289/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

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

…missioner (Appeals) was to be reversed on this issue and the order of Assessing Officer was to be restored. [Para 12] While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Bench also considered the following decisions: " K.C. Kaushik v. P.B. Rane, Fifth ITO [1990] 185 ITR 499/ 51 Taxman 51 (Bom.) (para 1), " Ratanchand Murarka v. Jt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 4485 (M) of 1999, dated 12-9-2001] (para 1), " ITO v. Daulat Lutharia [IT Appeal No. 9639 (B) of 1989, dated 16-5-1996] (para 1), " ITO v. Bhupendra Patel [IT Appeal No. 70 (M) of 1995, dated 24-4-2002] (para 1), " Fulwanti C. Rathod v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 1092 (M) of 19…

SMT. MANISHABEN RAKESHBHAI NAIK,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, NAVSARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 886/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.886/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Manishaben Rakeshbhai Vs. The Income Tax Naik, Officer, 26-B, Alka Society, Ward-3, Navsari. Chhapara Road, Navsari, Pan: Acjpn 5740 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 08-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 19-06-2018

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…ected (2110) 320 ITR (st)19., CIT v Joe B Fernandes SLP 23581 of 2009 dismissed 322 ITR (st.) 8, CIT v Rashmi Khanna SLP 30894 of 2009 322 ITR(st)8 dismissed, CIT v Khoobh Chand M Makhija 223 ITR 189(Kar), CIT v Geeta Duggal 2013-TIOL_143_HC, KC Kaushik v ITO 185 ITR 499(Bom), CIT v Raman Kumar Suri 2012-TIOL-982- HC-MUM-IT. ACIT v. N. M. Uniyal [2009] 34 SOT 152 (Delhi). 14. We may also mention that new amendment with effect from AY 15-16 made the exemption would be available in respect of one residential house. 15. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the detailed facts as a discussed above we ar…

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

…rance so that it can be let out or even the other family members can be adjusted and they can remain mutually supportive. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in K.C. Kaushik vs. Income Tax Officer 185 ITR 499 (Bom) held as under: “1. The petitioner is in the service of the Bank of Baroda. He purchased a flat in Suvarnadeep Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short "Surnadeep"), Santacruz, Bombay, on March 21, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 49,140 for the purpose of his residence. He was residing in that flat On October 24, 1979, he sold the flat for Rs…