Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT

59 ITD 94Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1996#5817 most cited

What is Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT authority for?

For claiming deduction under Section 54F, an assessee does not need to complete construction or occupy the residential house. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the entire net consideration was invested within the stipulated period.

20

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

Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT · Section 54F · Capital Gains Tax · Residential House · Investment · Construction · Occupation · Net Consideration · Stated Period · ITAT

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 263Section 50C

Issues it is cited on

section 54fsection 54section 139transferappeal before the tribunalsection 13prescribedindianfactotal incomedocumentsection 143(3)

Judgments citing Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT

RAJNI KUMAR WIFE OF SHRI BRIG. NARENDER KUMAR H.NO.394, SECTOR-21, GURGAONN,GURGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

ITA 3188/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. SR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…airs. Further, as already pointed out even if only advance is given the benefit still will be available for exemption u/s. 54F. Refer -Vishal Dutt v. ITO [2016] 68 Taxmann.com 337 (Mum. - Trib.). xi) In the case of Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 59 ITD 94 (Mad. – Trib.) it was held that the intention of the Legislature was to invest in the acquisition of a residential house and completion of construction or occupation is not required. In order to get the benefit under section 54F, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. Similar views have been expressed in t…

AVANASIYAPPAN ESWARAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO,WARD 1(2), TIRUPPUR

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

ITA 1666/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

…[2008] 302 ITR 286 (Mad) Dt.17.06.2008 iv. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramachandra Rao reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 163 (Madras) Dt.14.07.2014 v. ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of Seetha Subramaniam vs. ITO reported in [1996] 59 ITD 94 (Mad) dt. 25.04.1996 vi. ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of Sunayana Devi vs. ITO reported in [2017] 86 taxmann.com 72 (Kol) dt. 13.09.2017 6. As regards the claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act should be calculated on the actual consideration and not on the deemed consideration u/s.50C of the Act, the Ld.AR relied on the Jaipur Bench order of the…

PANATTU URUMIS CHACKO,ERNAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 790/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Terry V James, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. GirIy Albert, Sr. DR
Section 54Section 54F

…tatutory provision had been complied with by the assessees and that was reconfirmed by the Tribunal in the orders impugned. The Tribunal had also taken note of its own earlier order in the case of Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 56 TTJ (Mad.) 417/59 ITD 94 (Mad.), wherein the Tribunal has held that, in order to get the benefit under section 54F, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. It is enough if the assessee establishes that the assessee had invested the entire net consideration within the stipulated period. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allow…

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

…w-up action and taking delivery of possession is only a formality. The Board has directed that such an allotment of flat under this scheme should be treated as cost of construction for the purpose of capital gains. 2.2.2 Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT [1996] 59 ITD 94 (Mad. - Trib.) Held: ". . . The assessee also relied upon certain circulars issued by the CBDT. One of the circulars was [Circular No. 471, dated 15th October, 1986. This was issued by the CBDT clarifying the position that where an assessee acquires a flat by an allotment under the self-financing scheme of the Delhi Development Authority, the allot…

DHANANJAY MADHUKAR NAIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledhananjay Madhukar Naik V. Ito 12(3)(3) 306, Meghdoot Chsl, Sahaji Raje Marg Room No. 1631, 16Th Floor Koldongri, Vile Parle (W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400057 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Alrpn7498M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Anil Masand Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

…a residential house, even though the transactions are not complete in all respects and as required under the law, that would not disentitle the assessee from availing benefit under section 54F. 7.16 In the case of Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 59 ITD 94 (Mad.- Trib.) (Placed at PB Page No. 234-236) it was held 16 Dhananjay Madhukar Naik that the intention of the Legislature was to invest in the acquisition of a residential house and completion of construction or occupation is not required. In order to get the benefit under section 54F, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house…

RAJESH MIRAJKER,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-10(1),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 59/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Rajesh Mirajker, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 4/1, Abu Castle, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 925, Poonamallee High Road, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpm 9213 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.M.Karunakaran, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 54

…n judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari (supra). The assessee had also relied upon the decision of ITAT Chennai Benches in the case of Mrs.Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT reported in 59 ITD 94. 5. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that the assessee is failed to file necessary evidences to prove that he had spent amount for construction of house property and further, :: 6 :: said house property has been completed within a period of three years as specified u/s.54 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) af…

JAGDISH RAJESH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-20(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3258/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Nithya Sankaran, CA
Section 139(4)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी ,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" . BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:3258/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Jagdish Rajesh, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.144, Flat No.S-1, Non Corporate Ward - 20(3), v. Kamarajar Street, Chennai – 34. Chendurpuram, Kattupakkam, Chennai – 600 056. PAN: ADYPR 2029M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. Nithya Sank…

AVTAR KRISHEN JALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 29(4), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 9859/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Avtar Krishen Jalla, Vs Ito, D-6, Pamposh Enclave, Ward 29(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadpj6244N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Upender Bhatt, Fca Revenue By : Shri Farath Khan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Upender Bhatt, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Farath Khan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-2 : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Avtar Krishen Jalla, Vs ITO, D-6, Pamposh Enclave, Ward 29(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AADPJ6244N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Upender Bhatt, FCA Revenue by : Shri Farath Khan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 28.05.2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.11.2019 of the CIT(A)-35, New Delhi, relating to assessment year 2012-13. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-23(3), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL DILIP SANKHE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4376/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishore, AR
Section 292BSection 54FSection 56(2)(v)Section 56(2)(vii)

…986 (SI. No. 428), such cases may also be treated as cases of construction for the purposes of sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act." 26. The above two circulars (dated 15-10-1986 and 16-12- 1993) were explained in Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT [1996] 59 ITD 94 (Mad. - Trib.) with the following observations: "The assessee also relied upon certain circulars issued by the CBDT. One of the circulars was [Circular No. 471, dated 15th October, 1986. This was issued by the CBDT clarifying the position that where an assessee acquires a flat by an allotment under the self-financing scheme of the Delhi Developmen…

SHRI VIJAY MAHIPAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 502/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 502/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vijay Mahipal -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata [Pan: Aekpm 9834 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…of deduction u/s 54F of the Act came to the conclusion that it would be enough if the assessee establishes that he has invested the entire net consideration within the stipulated period. The Chennai Bench of ITAT in the case of Mrs. Seetha Subramanian vs ACIT 59 ITD 94 (Mad) also took a view that investment of the net consideration for construction of the house has alone to be seen for allowing deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 17. Having come to the conclusion that the assessee had utilised the net consideration in construction of a house within the period of three years from the date of transfer, the question woul…

SUJA GANESSAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 10(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 250/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita, JCIT
Section 54

…have inspected the premises, found that the construction was not completed. Referring to the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR 286 and the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT (1996) 59 ITD 94, the Ld.counsel submitted that it is not necessary that residential building has to be completed before the due date. What is required, according to the Ld. counsel, is investment of capital gain before the due date. In this case, according to the Ld. counsel, investment of capital gain made within due date is not in dispute. Therefore, according t…

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

…conclusion that in order to have the benefit under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, the construction should have been completed. The Tribunal has also taken note of its own earlier order in the case of Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. Asst. CIT reported in [1996] 59 ITD 94 (Mad.), wherein the Tribunal has held that, in order to get the benefit under section 54F, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. It is enough if the assessee established that the assessee had invested the entire net consideration within the stipulated period. The said view taken consistently by the Tribun…

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

…conclusion that in order to have the benefit under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, the construction should have been completed. The Tribunal has also taken note of its own earlier order in the case of Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. Asst. CIT reported in [1996] 59 ITD 94 (Mad.), wherein the Tribunal has held that, in order to get the benefit under section 54F, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. It is enough if the assessee established that the assessee had invested the entire net consideration within the stipulated period. The said view taken consistently by the Tribun…

KAMAL KISHORE SINGHI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 813/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kamal Kishore Singhi Asstt. Commissioner Of 10/161, Kamal Park Income Tax-26(1) K.G. Vs. Building, V.S. Marg, Mahim, Mittal Hospital Bldg., Mumbai-400016. 6Th Floor, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400002 Pan No. Aadps3820K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Hari S. Raheja, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

…not be treated as Short Term Capital Gains (STCG), the assessee filed a reply which has been extracted by the AO at page 3-4 of his assessment order dated 21.03.2014. Reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision in Mrs. Seeta Subramanium v. ACIT (1996) 59 ITD 94 (Madras), CIT v. Tata Teleservices Ltd. 122 ITR 594, CIT v. Sterling Investment Corpn. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 441 (Bom), ITO v. Smt. Kashmiraben M. Parekh (1992) 44 TTJ (Ahd) 68, Manju Agarwal v. ACIT (ITA No. 3923 of 2002 dated 16.09.2004) by ITAT Mumbai, Jitendra Mohan v. ITO (2007) 11 SOT 594 (Del), CIT v. Jindas Panchand Gandhi (2005) 279 ITR 552…

ITO 26(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. GOPE G. SHAHANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6895/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish T. PunjabiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

…Aayakr ApIlaIya AiQakrNa “G” nyaayapIz maMuba[- mao. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 6895/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer, Mr. Gope G. Shahani, 25(1)(5), R. No. 708, C-11, 7th D-51, Highway Apartment, Vs. Floor, B.K.C, Bandra (E), Near Sion Garden, Sion, Mumbai-51 Mumbai-400 022 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) PAN No. AFAPS2055Q Revenue by : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR Assessee by : Shri Jagdish T. Punjabi, Shri Ritu J. Punjabi, ARs’ Date of hea…

DCIT 32(2), MUMBAI vs. POONAM ANIL DALMIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3471/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrig. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3471/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Ishwar P. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…12.1993 taking the view that even allotment of the flat or house by state housing boards or cooperative societies would tantamount to purchase as on the date of allotment itself. The above two circulars were explained in Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT [1996] 59 ITD 94 (Chennai - Trib.) with the following observations: ‘…The assessee also relied upon certain circulars issued by the CBDT. Oneof the circulars was [Circular No. 471, dated 15th October, 1986. This was issued by the CBDT clarifying the position that where an assessee acquires a flat by an allotment under the self-financing scheme of the Delhi Develop…

MANOJ KHATURIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)-3, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2040/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…ich it is specifically held that if the construction was not completed within the 2 years then in the said circumstances, the assessee was also entitled to exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The Hon’ble ITAT Madras in the case of Mrs. Seetha Subramanian. Vs. ACIT (59 ITD 94) has also held that if the construction was not completed within the period of 2 years then in the said circumstances also the claim of the assessee cannot be declined if the assessee made the investment in the specified period. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has also held that in Income tax appeal no. 175 of 2012 in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHARUMATHY SESHADRI, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 886/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. N.R. Govindarajan, CA &
Section 139Section 54F

…he capital gains account scheme before the due date for filing return u/s. 139 which was 30.09.2011. and filed her return on 22.09.2011. Relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Seetha Subramanian vs. ACIT (1996) 59 ITD 94 and CIT vs Sardamal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR 286, the CIT(A) held that the assessee need not complete the construction and occupy the same within the period of three years from the date of sale of original asset, if the construction had commenced within the period of three years. In the assessee’s case not only the capital gain were invested in the…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI BHARATBHAI MADHAVLAL PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1670/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Sept 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri A. N. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…6 (Mad) on identical facts have upheld the order of Tribunal allowing exemption u/s 54F. The Hon'ble court has held as follows: - "The Tribunal has also taken note of its own earlier order in the case of Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. Asst. CIT reported in [1996] 59 ITD 94 (Mad.), wherein the Tribunal has held that, in order to get the benefit under section 54F, the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. It is enough if the assessee established that the assessee had invested the entire I.T.A No. 1670/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 4 DCIT vs. Shri Bharatbhai Madhavlal Patel net…

PRAVIN L. MANANIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri. M. Dayasagar
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 54

…en on merits, the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s 54 of the Act was to be allowed in view of the following decisions:- (i) L N Nagda (211 ITR 804) (Bom) (ii) Hilla Wadia (216 ITR 376) (Bom) (iii) Madhu Kaul (363 ITR 54) (P & H) (iv) Seetha Subramanian (59 ITD 94) (Mad) The Ld. AR contends that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act ought to be cancelled. 5 Assessment Year: 2007-08 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR emphatically supported the impugned order of the Ld. CIT. It was submitted that a perusal of the order of assessment for Asst. year 2007-08 dt. 24/12/2009 would prima…

Mrs. Seetha Subramanian v. ACIT (59 ITD 94) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax