Narasimha Raju Rudra Rao v. Asstt. CIT

143 ITD 586Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16731 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 54 Section 68

Judgments citing Narasimha Raju Rudra Rao v. Asstt. CIT

Rajni Kumar Wife of Shri Brig. Narender Kumar H.No.394, Sector-21, Gurgaonn, Gurgaon vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), 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

…e was constructed and completed subsequently, the Delhi Bench granted relief on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of reasons beyond the control of the assessee. ix) In the case of Narasimha Raju Rudra Rao v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 90/143 ITD 586 (Hyderabad - Tribunal) the ITAT held as under: Provision contained under section 54F being a beneficial provision has to be construed liberally. In various judicial precedents it has been held that the condition precedent for claiming benefit under section 54F is only that the capital gain realized from the sale of capital asset should be parted…

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

…was constructed and completed subsequently, the Delhi Bench granted relief on the ground that the delay had occurred on account of reasons beyond the control of the assessee. 7.14. In the case of Narasimha Raju Rudra Rao v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 90/143 ITD 586 (Hyderabad - Tribunal) (Placed at PB Page No. 229-233) the ITAT held as under: Provision contained under section 54F being a beneficial provision has to be construed liberally In various judicial precedents it has been held that the condition precedent for claiming benefit under section 54F is only that the capital gain realized from the sale of…

Anand Jitendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 5369/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anand Jitendra Shah, The Assistant Commissioner Of Sdc Exports, 122A, Dutta Income Tax- 18(1), Manditr Compound, Thakurdwar Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Road, Vs. Ernest House, Mumbai - 400002 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 4000021 Pan: Anqps6808R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Apurva M. Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore & Chaitanya Anjaria (Drs) Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri Apurva M. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 50CSection 54F

…ct. The Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sambandam Uday Kumar 257 CTR 317, decision of ITAT Mumbai in Hasmukh G Gala vs. ITO (2015) 44 CCH, (Mumbai Trib.), decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in Narsimha Raju Rudra 143 ITD 586 (Hyderabad Trib) and the decision of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of BS Shantakumari 62 SOT 53 (Bangalore Trib). 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the decision of the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that since the assessee has failed to construct/obtain possession of constructed property within three years from the da…

Ram Mohan Rai, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 234BSection 54

…ver of the property by the seller to the petitioner is not materially relevant for grant of exemption under Section 54F of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the ITAT in the case of Narasimha Raju Rudra Raju v. Asstt. CIT[2013] 35 taxmann.com 90/143 ITD 586 (Hyd. - Trib.). The contention of the revenue was that petitioner has invested in five different flats in different blocks, out pg. 4 Ram Mohan Rai ACIT 6612/Del/2016 AY 2013-14 of which one is under joint ownership and therefore, the petitioner has not fulfilled the condition for claiming exemption under Section 54F of the Act, which states th…

ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Girdharilal Asudani (HUF), Mumbai

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

ITA 1428/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm) & Ashwani Taneja (Am) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1428/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) Income Tax -19(1)(3), Shri Girdharilal Asudani (Huf), बनाम/ Room No.314, 3Rdh Floor, 201, Kirti Kunj Apartment, Vs. 14Th Road, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Lalbaug, Khar (W), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400052 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 54FSection 68

…. Counsel submitted that there is no additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore this allegation is factually incorrect. He further placed reliance on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Narasimha Raju Rudra Raju vs ACIT 143 ITD 586 (Hyderabad) for the proposition that section 54F has nowhere envisaged that the assessee has to utilize the same funds which were received on sale of old assets, for the purpose of making investment in the new assets. It was further submitted that there was actually no loan and this allegation is also factually correct. It was lastly submitted th…