How many judgments cite Sanjeev Lal v. CIT?

122 judgments on BharatTax cite Sanjeev Lal v. CIT (365 ITR 389), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sanjeev Lal v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 54, Section 147, Section 2(47), Section 148, Section 54F.

Sanjeev Lal v. CIT

365 ITR 389Supreme Court of India2014#857 most cited

What is Sanjeev Lal v. CIT authority for?

For claiming capital gains exemption under beneficial provisions like section 54, the 'date of transfer' can be the date of the agreement to sell, particularly when coupled with substantial advance consideration or an enforceable right, adopting a purposive and liberal interpretation to acknowledge the assessee's intent.

122

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sanjeev Lal v. CIT · section 2(47) · section 54 · section 54F · date of transfer · agreement to sell · capital gains exemption · purposive interpretation · beneficial provision · long-term capital gain

Also reported as

46 Taxmann.com 300225 Taxmann 239

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 54 Section 147 Section 2(47)Section 148 Section 54F Section 250 Section 54B

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(47)purposive interpretation section 53a section 53 section 54b date of transfer section 54 indexed cost of acquisition section 54f section 48 stamp duty value section 45

Judgments citing Sanjeev Lal v. CIT

Sai Keerti Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 299/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी. सं / Ita Nos.296, 297, 298, 299, 300 & 301 /Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Section 132Section 153A

…Assessing Officer to tax the transaction in the year of registration and not in the year of its conclusion by payment of the entire sale consideration and delivery of possession. 32. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in Sanjiva Lall vs. CIT (2014) 46 Taxmann.com 300 (SC) for the principle that where the assessee having executed an agreement to sell in respect of the property, a valid transfer takes place within the meaning of section 2(47) by even executing the agreement to sell and by payment of the sale consideration and subsequent acts. He further submitted that the sale is complete in the financia…

Mohammed Farhan Mohammed Yunus Attarwala, Mumbai vs. Ward 20(2)(1), NFAC Delhi, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6819/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: 18.02.2025

Section 234Section 270A

…parties through subsequent contract or conduct but such is not a case in hand before us. 15. For the aforesaid understanding, we gainfully rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal v. CIT [2014] 46 taxmann.com 300/225 Taxman 239/365 ITR 389 wherein similar observations and findings were given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, though in the context of agreement to sell. In paragraph 23 of the said decision, it is held as under: "23. Consequences of execution of the agreement to sell are also very clear and they are to the effect that the appellants could not have sold the property to someon…

Sigma Convertors, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 997/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Amar Pratap Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…be pointed out by learned counsel for the revenue in the findings recorded by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. Further, referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sanjeev Lai and another v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (2014) 365 ITR 389 (SC).” 8.2 On an analysis of these details, we are satisfied that amount kept in “Escrow Account” was not under the dominance and control of the assessee. It was not accrued to the assessee nor a right to receive was accrued. Thus, this amount is not to be offered for taxation in this assessment year. It is not taxable in assessment year 2012…

Mayura Mohta, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1953/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-29 Mayura Mohta Aaykar Bhavan Dakshin, 2, Sumer Trinity Towers 202, Tower-I, New Prabhadevi Road, Gariahat Road (South), Vs. Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025 Kolkata-700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpm3232R Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Monalisha Pal Mukherjee

Section 54Section 54F

…tion. Section requires “Purchase” of property.” 07. Similarly, in the case of Shri Varun Seth Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1388/Del/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16, the co-ordinate Bench after following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal s. CIT [2014] 365 ITR 389 (SC) held that the amount utilized for by the assessee in execution of land should be constitute as amount invested in the purchase/ construction of residential house. The relevant paras of the decision are as under:- “9. The real issue in the present case is that new residential house has not been constructed within a period of three years from…

Tamal Kundu, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 37, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1797/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 1797/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT

Section 2(47)(vi)Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1797/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tamal Kundu Income Tax Officer, Vs 40A, W.C. Banerjee Street, Girish National E-Assessment Centre, Park, Kolkata-700006, West Delhi, ACIT, Circle-37, 3, Bengal government place, [PAN : ALQPK8796A] (West), Kolkata-700001, West Bengal अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Anup Sinha, AR Revenue by : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing…

Sanjiv Atmaram Sawant, Mumbai vs. Jurisdictional AO-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-16(3), Aayakar Bhavan., Mumbai

ITA 4009/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

…d to be an agreement, as the promise and set of promises forming the consideration for each other were there in the agreement for sale dated 06.11.2019 only. Therefore, respectively, following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Lal Vs, CIT (2014)365 ITR 389(SC) it is held that extinguishment of rights took place by this agreement only and not by the allotment letter and accordingly the transfer took place on 06.11.2019 only and not 22.12.2014. Secondly, the difference is of Rs.1,01,29,333/3 which is more than 5% of the sales consideration, therefore section 56(2)(x) of the Act is attracted. Thirdly,…

ACIT, Circle, Shimla vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 54F

…ous decision of the other Honorable High Courts and Honorable Supreme Court; as follows; A. CIT v. T.N. Aravind Reddy (1979) 2 Taxman 541/120 ITR 46 (SO): B. Civil Appeal Nos. 5899-5900/2014 titled Sanjeev Lai v. CIT (20141 46 taxmann.com 300/225 Taxman 239/365 ITR 389 (SC) 1449-Chd-2019 Vinod Sharma, New Delhi 12 C Reference was made to the decision of Supreme court in CIT V. J.H. Gotla (19851 156 ITR 323/23 Taxman 14J (SC) D Moreover in CIT v. Bharati C Kothari (20001 244 ITR 352/(2001) 117 Taxman 538 (Cal.) In the instant case, since the assessee entered into an agreement for construction of a bare shell…

Suruchi Jena, Jharpada vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Pratyakha Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.207/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Suruchi Jena, Vs Acit, Circle-3(1), Partyakha Plot No.226-B, Shanti Nagar, Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Jail Road, Laxmi Sagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751006 Pan No. :Aazpj 2025 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.03.2014, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062072084(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Solitary Ground Taken By The Assessee Is With Regard To Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed U/S.54F Of The Act At Rs.1,95,76,997/- Towards Investment Made In The Acquisition Of New House Property Out Of The Sale Consideration Received From The Sale Of Capital Assets. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Has Sold Four Pieces Of Land For A Total Consideration Of Rs.1,97,00,000/- & Claimed Exemption U/S.54F Of The Act For The Investment Made In The Acquisition Of House Property Out Of Such Sale

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 54F

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA No.207/CTK/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Suruchi Jena, Vs ACIT, Circle-3(1), Partyakha Plot No.226-B, Shanti Nagar, Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Jail Road, Laxmi Sagar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751006 PAN No. :AAZPJ 2025 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Sarangi, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing :…

Umesh Sumanlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 967/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 54

…paid by the assessee as well as the investment made by the assessee in the relevant Assessment Year and which is duly reflected in the return of income as well as books of the assessee. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal vs. CIT, 365 ITR 389, has been relied by the ld. AR wherein it is held that where the assessee executed the agreement to sell in respect of house property, purchased new residential property within one year from the date of agreement to sell and subsequently sale deed could not be executed within the prescribed time due to order passed by the competent authority, in…

Income Tax Officer, Ward -5, Amravati vs. Jitendra Pransingh Thakur, Amravati

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 108/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.108/NAG./2019 Assessment Year 2015-2016 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Jitendra Pransingh Ward – 5, Aaykar Bhavan, Thakur, Pannalal Ambarpeth, Amravati. Bagicha, Galli No.3, vs. PIN – 444 601. Bhuteshwar Chowk, Maharashtra Amravati – 444 606. PAN AEVPT2236C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR For Assessee : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Date of Hearing : 22.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement :…

The ITO 4 (3), Indore vs. Smt Ranjana Gupta, Indore

ITA 4/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Income-Tax Officer, Smt. Ranjana Gupta, 4(3), 204, Sant Marg, बनाम/ Indore. Gandhi Nagar, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Bcjpg 9105 N Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja & Hitesh Chimnani, Cas Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54B

…Yadav & Anr. Vs. ITO, ITA No. 916/Ind/2016 order dated 09.10.2018. (d) ITAT, Indore in DCIT Vs. Indori Foot Care Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 788/Ind/2016 order dated 02.05.2017 following the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Lal and Smt. Shanti Lal Vs. CIT 365 ITR 389. The decisions at S.No. (c) and (d) are rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Indore itself. Ld. DR for revenue is not able to point out any ruling holding that the first proviso to section 50C was prospective and not retrospective. Faced with this situation, we have no reason to deviate from the view taken in aforesaid decisions relied upon…

Tarun Kumar Ratan Singh Rathi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 32(1), Mumbai

ITA 2695/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

…llowing the assessee's claim u/s 54 of the Act. 11. The assessee has also relied upon the following judicial decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Shri Girish L. Raga, No. 66 of 2015. 2. CIT Vs. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi and Ors, [2016] 389 ITR, 366 3. Sanjeev Lal Vs. CIT, [2014] 365 ITR 389 (SC) 2. Fibre Board (P) Ltd Vs. CIT, 2015 AIR SCW 4722 3. 4. Shri Hasmukh N. Gala Vs. ITO (ITO No. 7512/Mum/2013) Bhavan Cuccria Vs. ITO (ITO No. 341/Chd/2017) 12. We have gone through the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in Tax Appeal No. 66 of 2015 in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Girish L. Raga, wherein it was held as under: Tax Appeal…

Rajiv Kumar Nandlal Varma, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax -23(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3241/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Rajiv Kumar Nandlal Varma Income Tax-23(3) C/O.Mangaldas D Shah & Co 506, 5Th Floor, Lotus House 33-A, Vs. Room No.104, Matru Mandir New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajpv8710G

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM Asst. Commissioner of Rajiv Kumar Nandlal Varma Income Tax-23(3) C/o.Mangaldas D Shah & Co 506, 5th Floor, Lotus House 33-A, Vs. Room No.104, Matru Mandir New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400007 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAJPV8710G Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AR Revenue by : Shri Mahita Nair, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 02.01.2024 Date of pronouncement 05.01.2024 : O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA No 3241/Mum/2023 is filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2013- 14 again…

Omwati, Dehradun vs. Pr.CIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6853/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Omwati Pr. Cit W/O Sh. Dariyav Singh Dehradun 171/1, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Dehradun Pan-Aanpw 6438K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54B

…d on 30.07.2009. The observation of the Ld. PCIT gives raise to the legal question whether any right is created in favour of the purchaser on execution of agreement to sell. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal vs CIT reported in 365 ITR 389 (SC) had held as under:- 23. Consequences of execution of the agreement to sell are also very clear and they are to the effect that the appellants could not have sold the property to someone else. In practical life, there are events when a person, even after executing an agreement to sell an immovable property in favour of one person, tries to se…

Indumati Chintakuntala, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 2033/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER निर्धारण आ.अपी.सं / अपीलार्थीर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / वर्ष / A.Y. ITA No. Appellant Respondent Smt. Indumati Chintakuntala 1560/Hyd/2018 2013-14 L/R of Late Diwakar Reddy Chintakuntala Income Tax Hyderabad Officer, [PAN No. ABBPC4708P] Ward-4(3), Hyderabad Smt. Indumati 2033/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Chintakuntala Hyderabad [PAN No. AELPC9844B] निर्धारितीती द्वारा /Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा /Revenue…

Diwakar Reddy Chintakuntala, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1560/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 54

Maharshi Gogineni, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1644/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR

Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 1644/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Maharshi Gogineni, Assistant Commissioner of Hyderabad Vs. Income Tax, [PAN No. ADGPG7180E] Circle-14(1), Hyderabad अपीलार्थीर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारितीती द्वारा /Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR राजस्‍वजस्‍व द्वारा Shri Kumar Aditya, DR /Revenue by: सुनवाई ई की तारीखरीख/Date of hearing: 26/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीखर…

Asha Vijay, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-28(2), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 401/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & SRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 401/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asha Vijay...…………................................................Appellant [PAN: ACGPV 8710 N] Vs. ITO, Ward-28(2), Kolkata......................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. P.R. Kothari, A/R, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R, a…

Mr Gajanan Parshuram Khismatrao, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Kalyan

ITA 817/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranav PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

…03/2010, the property was already transferred on 18/01/2008 at the time of execution of the Development Agreement, and thus, for all intent and purpose the land was transferred in the assessment year 2008-09. 12. We find that in Sanjeev Lal v/s CIT, in [2014] 365 ITR 389 (SC), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the facts, wherein the assessee claimed the benefit under section 54 of the Act in respect of the capital gains arising from transfer of property vide sale deed registered on 24/09/2004, while the agreement to sell was executed on 27/09/2002, considered the question as to whether the date on whi…

DCIT-1, (International Taxation), Hyderabad vs. Syama Reddy Malireddy, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 325/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…ee had no control over the builder after making the payment and the assessee was at mercy of the builder for seeking the possession. In support of his case, ld. AR had relied on the following case laws : 7 Smt. Syama Reddy Malireddy i. Sanjeev Lal Vs. CIT – 365 ITR 389 (SC). ii. Mysore Minerals Ltd. Vs. CIT – 239 ITR 775 (SC). iii. Smt. Shashi Varma Vs. CIT – 224 ITR 106 (Madhya Pradesh High Court). iv. CIT Vs. Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia – 216 ITR 376 (Bombay High Court). v. CIT Vs. R.L. Sood – 245 ITR 727 (Delhi High Court) vi. Balraj Vs. CIT – 254 ITR 22 (Delhi High Court). vii. CIT Vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari – 2…