Pr. CIT v. C. Gopalaswamy

384 ITR 307High Court2016#7132 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also reported as

81 Taxmann.com 78

Sections most often in play

Section 54 Section 147 Section 263 Section 45 Section 54F Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 54f section 54 date of transfer section 45 long term capital gain transfer previous year prescribed section 142(1)section 148 document total income

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. C. Gopalaswamy

ARVINDER SINGH SAHNI,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 6778/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Punjabi, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR.)

Section 250Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. No.6778/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Arvinder Singh Sahni, 23 Deputy Commissioner of 23, Shree Industrial Income-tax, Circle – Premises, 2nd Hasnabad Vs. 13(2)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Lane, Santacruz (W), M.K. Road, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400050. 400020. (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN No. AAVPS 3529 D Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Ritu Punjabi, Ld. Adv Revenue by : Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR.) Date of Hearing : 17.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026…

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

….2003 would fully cover the consideration of capital gains portion for being eligible to claim exemption under Section 54 of the Act. 14. Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. C. GOPALASWAMY reported in [2016] 384 ITR 307 (KAR) has held that utilization of capital gains in construction of residential house would suffice to claim the benefit of Section 54 of the Act.” 7.3 Further, it is worthwhile here to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy reported in (1979) 120 ITR 46hasheld that the or…

NAVJYOTI SHARMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT ASMNT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Varadarajan D.P., A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 45Section 54

….2003 would fully cover the consideration of capital gains portion for being eligible to claim exemption under Section 54 of the Act. 14. Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. C. GOPALASWAMY reported in [2016] 384 ITR 307 (KAR) has held that utilization of capital gains in construction of residential house would suffice to claim the benefit of Section 54 of the Act.” 7.3 Further, it is worthwhile here to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax IT(IT)A No.235/Bang/2025 Navjyoti Sharma, Bangalore Page 11 of 14 v. T…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B’, NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajni 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 F…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. BAGALUR KRISHNAIAH SETTY VIJAY SHANKER, BENGALURU

ITA 1174/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR

Section 54

…erty, the construction of which is still not completed cannot be considered for the benefit u/s. 54 of the Act. 6. The learned A.R., on the other hand, relied on the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. C. Gopalaswamy [(2016) 384 ITR 307 (Kar)] to submit that in the said decision the Hon'ble High Court has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Giridhar G. Yadalam (supra) and distinguished the same. The learned A.R. further argued that the CIT(A) has rightly relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sambandam Uday…

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 459/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 cuke Sajjad Ali DCIT Vs. S/o Tehir Ali, General Merchant, (Intl.)- Jaipur Sadar Bazar, Kapasan, Chittorgarh LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASOPA 8295 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dhananjay 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 Date of conclusion of Hearing : 25.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is f…

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMINATHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7904/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

…possession of the residential house is not material if assessee has invested the substantial part of the money for acquisition or construction of residential house. In such a case deduction u/s 54 or 54F cannot be denied.  Pr. CIT vs. C. Gopalaswamy [2016] 384 ITR 307 (Karn) It was held that where the assessee has entered into an agreement with a builder and invested the capital gain for purchase of a residential unit, he is entitled to deduction u/s. 54 irrespective of the fact that builder has not completed the construction or has not yet handed over the flat. 8 Subramanian Swaminathan 14. Thus, we hold th…

SHRI KARAN RAJENDRAKUMAR ARYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 31/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Shri Karan Rajendrakumar Arya, The Principal Commissioner Of 802, Saffron, Panchvati, Vs. Income Tax-1, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 54

…nd invested the capital gain, it is immaterial that part of the consideration is yet to be paid or registration has not been completed. Deduction u/s 54 should be allowed. 7.3 Likewise, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. C. Gopalaswamy [2016] 384 ITR 307/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 78 has observed that where the assessee has entered into an agreement with a builder and invested the capital gain for purchase of a residential unit, he is entitled to deduction u/s 54 irrespective of the fact that builder has not completed the construction or has not yet handed over the flat. 7.4 Similarly, in the case of…

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

ITA 629/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

For Respondent: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.A

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015 – 16 Padma Rajagopalan, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.2A, Ward-3(3)(5), Rukmini Apartments, Bengaluru. No.1, Annamaya Block, Vs. Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru-560 020. PAN – ALUPP 2532 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Prashanth G.S, C.A Appellant by Respondent by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 17-09-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 20-09-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee agains…

SMT. GEETA DEVI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

ITA 351/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 154Section 54Section 54F

…eration then, the said condition cannot be thrust upon the assessee. Further, the assessee has invested the amount within the time period provided u/s 54F of the Act and we find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Principal CIT vs. C. Gopalaswamy 384 ITR 307 has held that the condition precedent for claiming the benefit u/s 54/54F of the Act is that capital gain realized from capital asset should have been invested either in purchase of residential house or in constructing the residential house. If it is established that the consideration was received on alienation property has been invested for purc…

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sugandha Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 54Section 54F

…struction on interpretation of provisions of section 54F & in view of ground reality that construction by builders takes unusually longer time in the practical scenario: i) Decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Principal CIT Vs C.Gopalaswamy (2016) 384 ITR 307 (Kar.); ii) Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kuldeep Singh (2014) 49 taxmann.com 167: It would be important to note the following from the operative portion of Delhi High Court decision vide paras 10 & 11 as under:- 10…….. It was observed that Section 54 of the Act says that assessee could have constructed the house and not, th…

MR.ASLAM ZACKRIA SAIT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 453/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CA and Shri. Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 54

…s enough for the assessee to establish that the assessee Page 11 of 16 had invested the consideration within the stipulated period and reliance was placed on the following decisions: CIT vs. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi 389 ITR 366 (Kar) Pr. CIT vs. C. Gopalaswamy, 384 ITR 307 (Kar) CIT vs. B S Shanthakumari, 126 DTR 436 (Kar) 6. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 596 in support of the proposition that the exemption under section 54 cannot be denied merely for the reason that the developer did not utilise the amount invested by the appellant. On other hand, the learned S…

ACIT, KOTA vs. SMT. ZAHIDA BANO, KOTA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 579/JPR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2017AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

…tion then, the said condition cannot be thrust upon the assessee. Further, the assessee has invested the amount within the time period provided u/s 54F of the Act and we find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Principal CIT vs. C. Gopalaswamy 384 ITR 307 has held that the condition precedent for claiming the benefit u/s 54/54F of the Act is that capital gain realized from capital asset should have been invested either in purchase of residential house or in constructing the residential house. If it is established that the consideration was received on alienation property has been invested for pu…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS SHAKUNTALA DEVI

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA/340/2009HC Karnataka28 Sept 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 54

…rays for answering the substantial question of law in favour of the assessee. In support of his submission he would rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER vs. C. GOPALASWAMY reported in [2016] 384 ITR 307 (KAR). 10. Facts on hand would clearly indicate that assessee had sold a flat at Mumbai for a total consideration of Rs.1,71,00,000/- on 04.02.2003 and thereby Long Term Capital Gains was arrived at Rs.1,44,68,032/-. In the return of income assessee claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act, contending interalia that said amount…

KAILASH S. PANVELI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed

ITA 3846/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

…t the assessees should be allowed deduction u/s 54 of the Act on the cost of new flat. The Ld A.R placed reliance on the following case law in support of his contentions. (a) CIT Vs. Mrs. Hilla J B Wadia (216 ITR 376)(Bom) (b) Pr. Cit Vs. C.Gopalaswamy (2016)(384 ITR 307)(Kar) (c) Muthuletchumi Janardanan Vs, DCIT (2012)(34 CCH 0193)(Cochin) 5 Shri Kailash S. Panveli & Shri Pratap Shankar Panveli 12. On the contrary, the Ld D.R supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. Since the value of new flat is considered as part of sale consideration of property, there is merit in the contentions of the assess…