Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramna v. CIT

201 ITR 1032High Court1993#5548 most cited
21

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

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194IASection 2(42A)Section 2(47)Section 234A

Judgments citing Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramna v. CIT

SMT. SHREE JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, we hold that

ITA 2565/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmt. Shree Jain, 17/1, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Anurag Ali Asker Rod, Off. Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai. Chunningham Road, 1/24, Room No.634, Aayakar Bhawan, Marsh Bangalore-560052. Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020. Pan/Gir No:Aarpj4573A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ain assessment year and the flats were received in AY2019-20, the assessee has rightly shown long-term capital gain of Rs.11,25,61,056/- in AY 2019-20. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Raj Rani Devi Ramna vs. CIT, 201 ITR 1032 (Pat.) He therefore, requested the addition made should be deleted. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR of the revenue relied on the orders of lower authorities. He submitted that only processing was due u/s 143(1) of the Act and there was credible information to reopen the assessment u/s 147 of the Act because assessee had not offered the ST…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 67/PUN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel &
Section 143(3)Section 42

…no proof of operative transfer, if there is a condition precedent as to the payment of consideration or delivering of sale deed etc. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramna, 201 ITR 1032 (Patna), wherein, Hon’ble High Court after referring to the decision held as follows :- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have no hesitation in holding that the properties do not necessarily pass as soon as the instrument is registered, for the true test is the intention of the parties. Registration is prima facie proof of an int…

ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 458/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel &
Section 143(3)Section 42

…no proof of operative transfer, if there is a condition precedent as to the payment of consideration or delivering of sale deed etc. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramna, 201 ITR 1032 (Patna), wherein, Hon’ble High Court after referring to the decision held as follows :- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have no hesitation in holding that the properties do not necessarily pass as soon as the instrument is registered, for the true test is the intention of the parties. Registration is prima facie proof of an int…

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 311/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 311/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 2. 2176/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Circle-1(1)(1) Opp. Samtheshwar Ahmedabad. Mahadev Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacu2414K 3. 2173/Ahd/2016 2011-12 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 4. 165/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 5. 287/Ahd/2017 2012-13 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 6-7 520 & 2013-14 Axis Bank Limited, D.C.I.T., 521/Ahd/2018 & Ahmedabad. Circle-1(1)(1) 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K 8-9 604 & 605/ 2013-14 D.C.I.T., Axis Bank Limited, Ahd/2018 & Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad. 2014-15 Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaacu2414K

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, and Shri Parin Shah,For Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, CIT.DR
Section 14A

…eived during June/July, 2011, possession of the flat was actually given to the purchaser on 15-7-2011 and short term capital gain of Rs. 81.18 lacs has been offered and included in total income by the Bank during A.Y. 2012-13 [Please see Rajarani Devi Rarnana 201 ITR 1032 (Patna)]. 5.3 It is further submitted that the addition is only timing difference based addition, is tax neutral, the Bank has already recognized and offered to tax the same capital gain and the AO has already taxed the same again as offered by the Bank during A.Y. 2012-13 [Please also see ratio of Excel Industries Limited 358 ITR 295 fSC)] The…

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 457/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…has confirmed the delivery of possession in the above agreement, it clearly shows that the assessee has actually sold the land only in the AY 2009-10. 14.5 Further, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Raja Ravi Ramana, Patna HC, 201 ITR 1032 for exemption u/s 54B & 54F of the Act. 15. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the land was transferred multiple times. The assessee has transferred the land in AY 2008-09 and received substantial amount and also handed over the possession of the property as per the agreement of sale. He submitted that these facts were elaborately discus…

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 456/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…has confirmed the delivery of possession in the above agreement, it clearly shows that the assessee has actually sold the land only in the AY 2009-10. 14.5 Further, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Raja Ravi Ramana, Patna HC, 201 ITR 1032 for exemption u/s 54B & 54F of the Act. 15. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the land was transferred multiple times. The assessee has transferred the land in AY 2008-09 and received substantial amount and also handed over the possession of the property as per the agreement of sale. He submitted that these facts were elaborately discus…

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 455/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…has confirmed the delivery of possession in the above agreement, it clearly shows that the assessee has actually sold the land only in the AY 2009-10. 14.5 Further, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Raja Ravi Ramana, Patna HC, 201 ITR 1032 for exemption u/s 54B & 54F of the Act. 15. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the land was transferred multiple times. The assessee has transferred the land in AY 2008-09 and received substantial amount and also handed over the possession of the property as per the agreement of sale. He submitted that these facts were elaborately discus…

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 454/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…has confirmed the delivery of possession in the above agreement, it clearly shows that the assessee has actually sold the land only in the AY 2009-10. 14.5 Further, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Raja Ravi Ramana, Patna HC, 201 ITR 1032 for exemption u/s 54B & 54F of the Act. 15. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the land was transferred multiple times. The assessee has transferred the land in AY 2008-09 and received substantial amount and also handed over the possession of the property as per the agreement of sale. He submitted that these facts were elaborately discus…

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 453/HYD/2018[2009/10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…has confirmed the delivery of possession in the above agreement, it clearly shows that the assessee has actually sold the land only in the AY 2009-10. 14.5 Further, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Raja Ravi Ramana, Patna HC, 201 ITR 1032 for exemption u/s 54B & 54F of the Act. 15. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the land was transferred multiple times. The assessee has transferred the land in AY 2008-09 and received substantial amount and also handed over the possession of the property as per the agreement of sale. He submitted that these facts were elaborately discus…

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 452/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…has confirmed the delivery of possession in the above agreement, it clearly shows that the assessee has actually sold the land only in the AY 2009-10. 14.5 Further, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Raja Ravi Ramana, Patna HC, 201 ITR 1032 for exemption u/s 54B & 54F of the Act. 15. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the land was transferred multiple times. The assessee has transferred the land in AY 2008-09 and received substantial amount and also handed over the possession of the property as per the agreement of sale. He submitted that these facts were elaborately discus…

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 451/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…has confirmed the delivery of possession in the above agreement, it clearly shows that the assessee has actually sold the land only in the AY 2009-10. 14.5 Further, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Raja Ravi Ramana, Patna HC, 201 ITR 1032 for exemption u/s 54B & 54F of the Act. 15. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the land was transferred multiple times. The assessee has transferred the land in AY 2008-09 and received substantial amount and also handed over the possession of the property as per the agreement of sale. He submitted that these facts were elaborately discus…

MOHAMMED JAML QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 450/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…has confirmed the delivery of possession in the above agreement, it clearly shows that the assessee has actually sold the land only in the AY 2009-10. 14.5 Further, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Raja Ravi Ramana, Patna HC, 201 ITR 1032 for exemption u/s 54B & 54F of the Act. 15. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the land was transferred multiple times. The assessee has transferred the land in AY 2008-09 and received substantial amount and also handed over the possession of the property as per the agreement of sale. He submitted that these facts were elaborately discus…

MOHAMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 449/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…has confirmed the delivery of possession in the above agreement, it clearly shows that the assessee has actually sold the land only in the AY 2009-10. 14.5 Further, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Raja Ravi Ramana, Patna HC, 201 ITR 1032 for exemption u/s 54B & 54F of the Act. 15. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the land was transferred multiple times. The assessee has transferred the land in AY 2008-09 and received substantial amount and also handed over the possession of the property as per the agreement of sale. He submitted that these facts were elaborately discus…

MOHAMMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 448/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…has confirmed the delivery of possession in the above agreement, it clearly shows that the assessee has actually sold the land only in the AY 2009-10. 14.5 Further, ld. AR of the assessee relied on the decision in the case of Smt. Raja Ravi Ramana, Patna HC, 201 ITR 1032 for exemption u/s 54B & 54F of the Act. 15. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the land was transferred multiple times. The assessee has transferred the land in AY 2008-09 and received substantial amount and also handed over the possession of the property as per the agreement of sale. He submitted that these facts were elaborately discus…

SUNIL KUMAR SUMAN,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3)(3), HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6593/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 2(47)(v)Section 50C

…. Nextly, he submitted that the income from capital gain on a transaction which is not finalized is at best a hypothetical income and cannot be brought to tax. For the purpose, he placed a reliance on the decisions reported in Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramana (1993) 201 ITR 1032 (Patna) and CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) 398 ITR 531 (SC). 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that in this matter having received a part of consideration the assessee delivered the possession of the property and also executed the registered instrument, as such, as rightly pointed out by the authorities below the transfer u/s 2(47)(v) of t…

KISHORE KUMAR KATARUKA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2787/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Amar Gahlot & ChandniFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)

…puria and Mr. Sunil Khemka. The sale would be deemed to be concluded after the full payment and on the date of registration which effected after the A.Y. 2006-07. In this regard we also find in support of law settled in Shri Raj Rani Devi Ramna Vs. CIT-(1993) 201 ITR 1032 Patna, Suraj lamp and Industries P. Ltd. Vs. State of Harayana and Anr. (2012) 340 ITR 1 Supreme Court. The assessee admitted that the sale-deed was registered in the year 2011-12 but he received full A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09 consideration in the A.Y. 2008-09, therefore, he offered the same to tax under the head of long term capital gain.…

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 366/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

…epted before 31.03.2007 and possession of the land was also not with the appellant till the encashment of the post dated cheque. 6.8 The appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramna Vs. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 1032. However, the fact of that case is distinguishable from the facts of instant case. In that case, the registered sale deed in respect of three sales clearly stipulated that only on payment of the entire consideration amount, the registration receipt and delivery of possession will be given evidencing the passing of title to the vendee. Whereas in…

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

…epted before 31.03.2007 and possession of the land was also not with the appellant till the encashment of the post dated cheque. 6.8 The appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the case of Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramna Vs. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 1032. However, the fact of that case is distinguishable from the facts of instant case. In that case, the registered sale deed in respect of three sales clearly stipulated that only on payment of the entire consideration amount, the registration receipt and delivery of possession will be given evidencing the passing of title to the vendee. Whereas in…

GOPALDAS J LUND,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2167/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodgopaldas J. Lund, 57/C,Ashirwad Chs, Opp. Brighton Towers, 2Nd Cross Lane, Lokhandwala, Andheri(West), Mumbai 400 058 Pan: Aaapl 4542N ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Sunil NahtaFor Respondent: Shri V.Vidhyadhar
Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54

…tadevi Pasari, ITA No. 861 of 2007 dated 10.7.2008 (Bombay High Court); 6 Gopaldas J. Lund ii) Dr. Arvind S. Phadke vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2014] 46 taxmann.com 335 (Pune – Trib); iii) Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramna vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, 201 ITR 1032 (Patna High Court); and iv) Ajay Kumar Shah Jagati vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2008] 168 taxman 53 (SC) 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue pointed out that the said plea was not before the lower authorities and, in fact, the CIT(A) has clearly denied the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act and the Capital Gains hav…

NAGESH VITTHAL SALGAONKAR,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-24(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3079/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhnagesh Vitthal Salgaonkar, फनाभ/ Dcit 24(3), Flat No.4, „B‟ Wing, Saburbina Mumbai. Vs. Coop. Housing Society, Siddharth Nagar, Road No.17, Vidyaniketan Marg, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-62. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Bbnps4489Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 154Section 54E

…onsideration (or if the vendor proves that the entire sale consideration was not paid to him), title in the property would not pass to the purchaser.” 4. The above judgment has reflected in an income tax matter in the case of Smt. Raj Rani Devi Ramna vs. CIT (201 ITR 1032 (Del) the said principle was upheld and the same judgment is relevant for the following propositions. The held portion of the said decision is extracted as under:- “Held, that, in the instant case, it was apparent that the parties had clearly intended that, despite the execution and registration of sale deeds, transfer by way of sale would becom…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2