S Gopal Reddy v. CIT

181 ITR 378High Court1990#6435 most cited

What is S Gopal Reddy v. CIT authority for?

The six-month period for reinvesting capital gains under Section 54EC is calculated from the date of actual receipt of sale consideration, not the date of transfer or compulsory acquisition.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Also referred to as

S Gopal Reddy v. CIT · Section 54EC · reinvestment period · receipt of sale consideration · capital gains tax · compulsory acquisition · date of transfer

Judgments citing S Gopal Reddy v. CIT

Guruvendra Singh, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 548Section 54B

…re or even do some violence to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction." (p. 598) 4.8. Attention is also drawn towards the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Janardhan Dass [2008] 299 ITR 210 (Allahabad). 4.8.i In the said case, land owned by the assessee was compulsorily acquired by the State Government in a particular year. However, the compensation on such compulsory acquisition was received in subsequent year. Assessee, in the said case, claimed benefit under Section 54B, with reference to the year in which the compensation was re…

Smt. Seema Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1185/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…achal Kumar Sircar vs ITO (2012) 18 taxmann.com 304(Kol), Mr. Lemes E. D’Souza vs. ITO in 5802/Mum/2013 dated ITA No.1177 to 1185/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 8 10.04.2017, CIT vs. Janardhan Dass 170 Taxman 113 (Allahabad) & S. Gopal Reddy vs. CIT 181 ITR 378 (AP) support the assessee’s case that the specified time period of six months for reinvestment of capital gains u/s 54EC claim has to be reckoned from actual receipt of sale consideration only. We are of the view in above-stated factual backdrop that the assessee’s reinvestment falls within six months from the date of transfer. He is entitled fo…

Smt. Puja Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1184/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…achal Kumar Sircar vs ITO (2012) 18 taxmann.com 304(Kol), Mr. Lemes E. D’Souza vs. ITO in 5802/Mum/2013 dated ITA No.1177 to 1185/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 8 10.04.2017, CIT vs. Janardhan Dass 170 Taxman 113 (Allahabad) & S. Gopal Reddy vs. CIT 181 ITR 378 (AP) support the assessee’s case that the specified time period of six months for reinvestment of capital gains u/s 54EC claim has to be reckoned from actual receipt of sale consideration only. We are of the view in above-stated factual backdrop that the assessee’s reinvestment falls within six months from the date of transfer. He is entitled fo…

Smt. Shalini Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1183/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…achal Kumar Sircar vs ITO (2012) 18 taxmann.com 304(Kol), Mr. Lemes E. D’Souza vs. ITO in 5802/Mum/2013 dated ITA No.1177 to 1185/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 8 10.04.2017, CIT vs. Janardhan Dass 170 Taxman 113 (Allahabad) & S. Gopal Reddy vs. CIT 181 ITR 378 (AP) support the assessee’s case that the specified time period of six months for reinvestment of capital gains u/s 54EC claim has to be reckoned from actual receipt of sale consideration only. We are of the view in above-stated factual backdrop that the assessee’s reinvestment falls within six months from the date of transfer. He is entitled fo…

Shri Suresh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1182/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…achal Kumar Sircar vs ITO (2012) 18 taxmann.com 304(Kol), Mr. Lemes E. D’Souza vs. ITO in 5802/Mum/2013 dated ITA No.1177 to 1185/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 8 10.04.2017, CIT vs. Janardhan Dass 170 Taxman 113 (Allahabad) & S. Gopal Reddy vs. CIT 181 ITR 378 (AP) support the assessee’s case that the specified time period of six months for reinvestment of capital gains u/s 54EC claim has to be reckoned from actual receipt of sale consideration only. We are of the view in above-stated factual backdrop that the assessee’s reinvestment falls within six months from the date of transfer. He is entitled fo…

Smt. Mridul Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1181/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…achal Kumar Sircar vs ITO (2012) 18 taxmann.com 304(Kol), Mr. Lemes E. D’Souza vs. ITO in 5802/Mum/2013 dated ITA No.1177 to 1185/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 8 10.04.2017, CIT vs. Janardhan Dass 170 Taxman 113 (Allahabad) & S. Gopal Reddy vs. CIT 181 ITR 378 (AP) support the assessee’s case that the specified time period of six months for reinvestment of capital gains u/s 54EC claim has to be reckoned from actual receipt of sale consideration only. We are of the view in above-stated factual backdrop that the assessee’s reinvestment falls within six months from the date of transfer. He is entitled fo…

Smt. Seema Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.- 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1180/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…achal Kumar Sircar vs ITO (2012) 18 taxmann.com 304(Kol), Mr. Lemes E. D’Souza vs. ITO in 5802/Mum/2013 dated ITA No.1177 to 1185/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 8 10.04.2017, CIT vs. Janardhan Dass 170 Taxman 113 (Allahabad) & S. Gopal Reddy vs. CIT 181 ITR 378 (AP) support the assessee’s case that the specified time period of six months for reinvestment of capital gains u/s 54EC claim has to be reckoned from actual receipt of sale consideration only. We are of the view in above-stated factual backdrop that the assessee’s reinvestment falls within six months from the date of transfer. He is entitled fo…

Shri Ramesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1179/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…achal Kumar Sircar vs ITO (2012) 18 taxmann.com 304(Kol), Mr. Lemes E. D’Souza vs. ITO in 5802/Mum/2013 dated ITA No.1177 to 1185/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 8 10.04.2017, CIT vs. Janardhan Dass 170 Taxman 113 (Allahabad) & S. Gopal Reddy vs. CIT 181 ITR 378 (AP) support the assessee’s case that the specified time period of six months for reinvestment of capital gains u/s 54EC claim has to be reckoned from actual receipt of sale consideration only. We are of the view in above-stated factual backdrop that the assessee’s reinvestment falls within six months from the date of transfer. He is entitled fo…

Shri Manish Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1178/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…achal Kumar Sircar vs ITO (2012) 18 taxmann.com 304(Kol), Mr. Lemes E. D’Souza vs. ITO in 5802/Mum/2013 dated ITA No.1177 to 1185/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 8 10.04.2017, CIT vs. Janardhan Dass 170 Taxman 113 (Allahabad) & S. Gopal Reddy vs. CIT 181 ITR 378 (AP) support the assessee’s case that the specified time period of six months for reinvestment of capital gains u/s 54EC claim has to be reckoned from actual receipt of sale consideration only. We are of the view in above-stated factual backdrop that the assessee’s reinvestment falls within six months from the date of transfer. He is entitled fo…

Shri Rajnish Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1177/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…achal Kumar Sircar vs ITO (2012) 18 taxmann.com 304(Kol), Mr. Lemes E. D’Souza vs. ITO in 5802/Mum/2013 dated ITA No.1177 to 1185/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 8 10.04.2017, CIT vs. Janardhan Dass 170 Taxman 113 (Allahabad) & S. Gopal Reddy vs. CIT 181 ITR 378 (AP) support the assessee’s case that the specified time period of six months for reinvestment of capital gains u/s 54EC claim has to be reckoned from actual receipt of sale consideration only. We are of the view in above-stated factual backdrop that the assessee’s reinvestment falls within six months from the date of transfer. He is entitled fo…

Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3040/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3039/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat. 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8297 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3040/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S Ward-3(3), Surat. City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8296 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Hiren M.Diwan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iv, Surat Dated 27.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Page 2 Of 10 Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel & Other Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Surat. /Ita No’S.3039 & 3040/Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2010-11

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

…bank account should be treated as complied with by the appellant in respect of the sale consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000/- referred to above. (i) In support of my above submission, reliance is placed on the following judgments: a) S. Gopal Reddy V/s CIT (1990) 181 ITR 378 (AP). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 19 & 20 b) Chanchal Kumar Sircar V/s ITO (2012) 16 ITR (Trib) 91 (Kolkata). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No.21 & 22. (j) Kindly note that the remaining sum of 6,06,043/- which was deposited by the appellant into the capital gain bank account on 10,01.2011 i.e. after the time limit provide…

Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3039/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3039/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat. 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8297 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3040/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Champakbhai Ambalal Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, 1004, Shreeji Sayona Apartment, S Ward-3(3), Surat. City Light Road, City Light, . Surat – 395007. [Pan: Axjpp 8296 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Hiren M.Diwan – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. This Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Iv, Surat Dated 27.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. Page 2 Of 10 Pankajbhai Ambalal Patel & Other Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Surat. /Ita No’S.3039 & 3040/Ahd/2014 For A.Y. 2010-11

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

…bank account should be treated as complied with by the appellant in respect of the sale consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000/- referred to above. (i) In support of my above submission, reliance is placed on the following judgments: a) S. Gopal Reddy V/s CIT (1990) 181 ITR 378 (AP). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No. 19 & 20 b) Chanchal Kumar Sircar V/s ITO (2012) 16 ITR (Trib) 91 (Kolkata). Gist of the judgment enclosed at Pages No.21 & 22. (j) Kindly note that the remaining sum of 6,06,043/- which was deposited by the appellant into the capital gain bank account on 10,01.2011 i.e. after the time limit provide…

Smt. Birma Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

ITA 678/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

…ed and possession of land was also given but the investment u/s 54EC was made before the date of registered sale deed. In the said case, the reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Gopal Reddy v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 378, which was related to compensation for acquisition and for delayed receipt of compensation and the claim was u/s 54E. The delayed investment on account of delayed 43 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO receipt of compensation is covered under second proviso to section 54E as discussed above. In the case of CIT Vs. Cello Plast (supra), the ti…

DCIT 22(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Rajesh Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6131/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…t is received by assessee. This issue is covered by the Tribunals decision in the case of Chanchal Kumar Sircar Vs. Income Tax (2012) 50 SOT 0289 wherein considering the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S Gopal Reddy Vs. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 378 (AP); CIT vs. Janardhan Dass (late through legal heir Shyam Sunder) (2008) 299 ITR 210 (All); Darapaneni Chenna Krishnayya (HUF) Vs. CIT (2007) 291 ITR 98 (A) and wherein it is held that the period of six months for making deposit u/s. 54EC Page 8 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) of t…

Rajesh Builder, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2955/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…t is received by assessee. This issue is covered by the Tribunals decision in the case of Chanchal Kumar Sircar Vs. Income Tax (2012) 50 SOT 0289 wherein considering the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S Gopal Reddy Vs. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 378 (AP); CIT vs. Janardhan Dass (late through legal heir Shyam Sunder) (2008) 299 ITR 210 (All); Darapaneni Chenna Krishnayya (HUF) Vs. CIT (2007) 291 ITR 98 (A) and wherein it is held that the period of six months for making deposit u/s. 54EC Page 8 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) of t…

Rajesh Builder, Mumbai vs. CIT 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2954/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…t is received by assessee. This issue is covered by the Tribunals decision in the case of Chanchal Kumar Sircar Vs. Income Tax (2012) 50 SOT 0289 wherein considering the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S Gopal Reddy Vs. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 378 (AP); CIT vs. Janardhan Dass (late through legal heir Shyam Sunder) (2008) 299 ITR 210 (All); Darapaneni Chenna Krishnayya (HUF) Vs. CIT (2007) 291 ITR 98 (A) and wherein it is held that the period of six months for making deposit u/s. 54EC Page 8 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) of t…

Mr.Lemes E. D'Souza, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 21(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5802/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5802/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10) Mr. Lemes E. D’ Souza, Ito – Ward 21(3)(3), बनाम/ Alk Bricks Factory Room No. 507, 5 Th Floor, V. Company, C-11, Pratyakshakar Behind Sakinaka, Bhavan, Motor Training School, B.K.C. Bandra, Opp. Janseva Decoilers, Mumbai – 400 051. Sakinaka, Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aadpd7091 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadev
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(V)Section 45Section 54ESection 54F

…n it would lead to an impossible situation by asking assessee to invest money in specified asset before actual receipt of the same. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Gopal Reddy v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 378, wherein similar situation of delayed receipt of compensation amount on acquisition of property, Hon'ble High Court observed that if the investment in specified asset was made within a period of six months from the date of receipt of compensation, as against the date of acquisition of the property denoting transfer thereof, the same should be con…

D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata vs. M/S Kilburn Engineering Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1987/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.S.Biswas, CITFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Singhi, AR
Section 45Section 54GSection 54G(2)

…by asking assessee to invest money in specified asset before actual receipt of the same. Reliance was placed by the appellate authority for the aforesaid view from the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of s. Gopal Reddy Vs. CIT (1990) 181 ITR 378 (AP), wherein similar situation of delayed receipt of compensation amount on acquisition of property, Hon 'ble High Court observed that if the investment in specified asset was made within a period of six months from the date of receipt of compensation, as against the date of acquisition of the property denoting transfer thereof the same should b…