Ranjit Narang v. CIT

317 ITR 332High Court2009#24441 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139 Section 139(1)Section 45 Section 54 Section 54B Section 54D Section 54F Section 54F(1)

Judgments citing Ranjit Narang v. CIT

Sreenivasulu Sagaleti, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

…od expires from the date of transfer by way of compulsory acquisition of land wherein it can bring the same to tax u/s 45 of the Act. In this regard, reference can be drawn to the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Ranjit Narang v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 332 wherein it was held as under:— "9. We have given thoughtful consideration and we find force in the submission made by Sri Shambhu Chopra. The proviso to section 54F specifically deals with the situation where the assessee who in order to save himself from payment of tax of capital gains decided to either purchase a house or construct the house wi…

Smt. Neelima Pravinkumar Khamkar, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Ichalkranji

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1534/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni &For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 54F

…ame, but however, submits that the construction was completed as on 31-03-2018 and prayed to remand the matter to the file of AO for his fresh verification in view of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Ranjit Narang Vs. CIT reported in 317 ITR 332 (All.). On a careful reading of the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Ranjit Narang (supra) which held that the amount of capital gains which has not been utilized u/s. 54F has to be charged after the expiry of three years from the date of sale of the asset. In the present case, admittedly, the assessee purchased a reside…

Mr. Viney Singh, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result this ground with respect to Rs

ITA 3219/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiviney Singh, Vs. Dcit, House No. 203-C, Gulmohar Greens, Circle-2, Cgo Complex-2, 95M Katori Mill, Mohan Nagar, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan:Apups1655L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54F

…ted on 30.07.2012, the ld AO did not grant the deduction because during the specified period the sum utilized by the assessee was only Rs. 329100/-. The assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Ranjit Narang Vs. CIT 317 ITR 332 wherein, it has been held that if the amount deposited is not utilized for the purposes of acquisition in the house property then such shortfall shall be Viney Singh Vs. DCIT, SA No. 463/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) chargeable to tax in the year in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires.…