How many judgments cite Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT?

37 judgments on BharatTax cite Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT (224 ITR 106), spanning 2014 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 54, Section 54F, Section 2(47), Section 53A, Section 133(6).

Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT

224 ITR 106High Court1997#3170 most cited

What is Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT authority for?

Expenditure incurred by an assessee towards payment of installments for acquiring a new residential property can be considered as investment for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 54, even if the sale deed has not been registered. The assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54 can be allowed if the installments paid exceed the amount of capital gain.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT · Section 54 · Section 54F · capital gains exemption · investment in new house · installments paid · date of transfer · unregistered agreement to sell · purposive interpretation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 54 Section 54F Section 2(47)Section 53A Section 133(6)Section 139 Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 54(2)section 54f(1)section 54(1)purposive interpretation long-term capital asset section 53a section 53 section 54f section 2(47)section 54 date of transfer indexed cost of acquisition

Judgments citing Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT

ITO Ward-53(3), New Delhi vs. Anju Madhan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9321/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53ASection 54

…not 3 been registered. In this context, Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kuldeep Singh [2014] 49 taxmnn.com 167 (Delhi) and decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Verma vs. CIT 224 ITR 106 (MP) and gave relief to the assessee by observing as under: “The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kuldeep Singh (supra) [2014] 49 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi) has explained the meaning of the expression purchased' in the context of section 54 of the Act in following words: - "8. The word 'purchase' can be given both restrictive and wid…

Chandi Ram Sahajwani Through Dinesh Kumar Legal Heir, Panipat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 849/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 849/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2012-13] Shri Chandi Ram Sehajwani Vs. The ITO Through L/H Shri Dinesh Kumar Ward -1 C/o Shri Krishan Lal Kalra, Adv Panipat, Haryana 857-858, Sethi Chowk, Panipat Haryana PAN – AGOPS 1130 R (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.L. Kalra, Adv Department By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed again…

Rajni Kumar Wife of Shri Brig. Narender Kumar H.No.394, Sector-21, Gurgaonn, Gurgaon vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), 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…

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

ITA 366/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 54Section 54F

…hom he had entered into an earlier agreement to sell should be allowed to be set off as expenses incurred in relation to the sale deed which was executed. 10. More direct are the two decisions of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shashi Verma (Smt.) vs. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106 and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (2000) 244 ITR 352. In Shashi Verma (supra), the assessee had invested the sale consideration for purchase of a flat from Delhi Development Authority and had paid part installments. Reversing the decision of the Tribunal and allowing the appeal of the assessee, the High Court observed tha…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut vs. Prem Sapra, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 54

…NarpalNagda (deceased) (Bombay H.C.). ➤216 ITR 376, CIT Vs. Mrs. Hilla JB Wadia (Bom. H.C.). 12 ACIT v. Prem Sapra A.Y. 2021-22 ➤ 345 ITR 389, CIT vs. SambandamUdayakumar (Karnataka H.C.). ➤ 302 ITR 286, CIT vs. Sardarmal Kothari and Another (Madras H.C.). ➤ 224 ITR 106, Smt. Shashi Varma Vs. CIT (MP). ➤345 ITR 389, CIT vs. SambandamUdayakumar (Karnataka H.C.) ➤ITAT Delhi Bench order dated 23/01/2023 in the case of ACIT vs. Sh. Sanjay Chaudhary (ITA No. 1274/Del/2020), copy placed at pages 129-138 of PB Relevant findings of ITAT vide para 9 & 10 are reproduced at pages 20-21 of PB. ➤ ITAT Ahmedabad Bench judgmen…

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Sanjay Chowdary Gaddipati, Hyderabad

ITA 376/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…s fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT, Bangalore Vs. B.S Shantha Kumari, ITA No. 165 of 2014, dated 13.07.2015 and that of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Smt. Shashi Varma Vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 106 (MP). 17. Apropos the observation of the A.O. that the assessee had failed to substantiate his claim of having invested towards the construction of a new residential house based on supporting documents, viz. copy of the construction plan, bank account statement, bills/vouchers etc., we find that the A.O. had observed that as the assessee except f…

Shri. Narsingh Ranga, Jabalpur vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 10/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Narsingh Ranga Dcit, Circle-2(1) V. Sharda Chowk, Nagpur Road, Aaykar Bhawan, Napier Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Town, Jabalpur, Madhya 482001. Pradesh-482001. Pan:Acmpr1917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Seth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…ays that the assessee should construct the house that does not mean that the construction of house should necessarily be completed within stipulated time is view was been taken by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT 1997) 224 ITR 106 (MP) and various other court an Hon’ble ITAT benches. Notice issued by CIT(A) for fixing the case for hearing responded by the assessee as he is suffering from cancer and prostate due to which the adjournment were taken. Last time case was fixed for hearing on 09.08.2023 and assessee has requested for adjournment on 9.08.2023 (copy of ack, no 173…

Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Coimbatore vs. Acot, Ncc-5, Coimbatore

ITA 690/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.690/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Race Course, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641018, [Pan: Adjpp4946N] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-5, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2029-20/1026334108(1) Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), For The

For Appellant: Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 142ASection 142A(1)Section 142A(6)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 250

…sense of legal transfer and, therefore, the holding of a legal title within a period of one year is not a condition precedent for attracting section 54 of the Act. 8. The CIT (Appeals) and AO failed to take note of judgment in Smt. Shashi Varma Vs. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 106 (MP) wherein it was held if the substantial investment is made in the construction of house, then it should be deemed that sufficient steps have been taken and this satisfies the requirements of section 54". :- 6 -: ITA No.690/Chny/2020 9. The CIT (Appeals) and AO failed to take note of judgment in In CIT vs. RL Sood (2000) 245 ITR 127 (Del.), he…

Sheela Ramchand Uttamchandani, Mumbai vs. ITO-30(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3398/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54

…ry of three years from the date of sale of the original asset, the flat was not constructed by the builder. 14. During the hearing, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Shashi Varma v/s CIT, (1997) 224 ITR 106 (MP), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that completion of construction and handing over of possession within the time prescribed u/s 54 of the Act is impossible and unworkable. The Hon’ble High Court further held that if substantial investment is made in the construction of the house, then it Sheela Ramchand Uttamchandani should be deemed that…

Subhash Chand Kasera, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 47(1), New Delhi

Ground of Appeal 2 and 3 are dismissed

ITA 4092/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…respect the assessee relied upon very many judgments as follows :- (i) CIT Vs. Sardarimal Kothari and another [2008] reported in 302 ITR 286 (ii) Smt. Ranjeet Sandhu Vs. DCIT [2011] reported in 16 taxmann.com 210 (iii) Smt. Shashi Verma Vs. CIT reported in [224 ITR 106 (MP)] (iv) B.B. Sarkar Vs. CIT reported in [ 1981] 132 ITR 150 (Cal.) (v) CIT Vs. Smt. Brinda Kumari [2001] reported in 114 Taxman 266 (Delhi) (vi) CIT Vs. R.L. Sood [2000] reported in 108 Taxmnan 227 (Delhi) (vii) Smt. V. A. Tharbai Vs. DCIT reported in 19 taxmann.com 276 (Chennai) (viii) K. Datta Vs. Income Tax Officer [2006] reported in 100 TT…

Indira Giri, Jaipur vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Deparment Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

…pays the first instalment of the cost of the construction. From that it is clear that in order to get the benefit under section 54F the assessee need not complete the construction of the house and occupy the same. . . ." 2.2.3 Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106 (MP), 25 Indira Giri vs. ITO In this case the assessee was denied exemption on the investments made with Delhi Development Authority. However, relief was granted by the Hon'ble High Court. It was held that section 54 of the Act of 1961 only says that within two years, the assessee should have constructed the house but that does not mean that th…

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

…reement to sell should be allowed to be set off as expenses incurred in relation to the sale deed which was executed.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Varma vs. CIT, 224 ITR 106 (M.P) and that of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Cal) 244 ITR 352 and opined that when substantial investment was made in the new property, it should be deemed that sufficient steps had been taken and it would satisfy the requirements of section 54 of the Act. As per the Hon’ble High Court, the bas…

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

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

…Page No. 173-175) it has been held that since substantial amount of the consideration was paid within the time, the deduction u/s. 54 will be available though the possession and registration was made later. 7.5. In the case of Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106 (MP) (Placed at PB Page No. 176-177) it was held that section 54 of the Act only says that within two years, the assessee should have constructed the house but that does not mean that the construction of house should necessarily be complete within two years. What it means is that the construction of house should be completed as far as possible wi…

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

…ll should be allowed Page 5 of 8 to be set off as expenses incurred in relation to the sale deed which was executed.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Varma vs. CIT, 224 ITR 106 (M.P) and that of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari (Cal) 244 ITR 352 and opined that when substantial investment was made in the new property, it should be deemed that sufficient steps had been taken and it would satisfy the requirements of section 54 of the Act. As per the Hon’ble High Court, the bas…

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

…ete and in view thereof the benefit of exemption claimed under section 54F was rejected by the authorities below. However, following the ratio laid down by the Madhya 6 Subramanian Swaminathan Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106. It was found that there was no merit in the plea of the authorities in denying the exemption under section 54F on the ground that the construction of the house had not been completed. The requirement of sections 54 and 54F is for the assessee to have either purchased a residential house being a new asset within the stipulated period or construct…

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

…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 – 244 ITR 352 (Calcutta High Court). viii. Andhra Networks Vs. DCIT – 167 TTJ 496 (ITAT Hyderabad Bench). i…

ACIT Central-2 Indore, Indore vs. Shri .Gaurav Tekriwal, Indore

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54FSection 55(2)(a)Section 57

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 ACIT, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: ACPPT 1628 Q Assessee by Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, ARs Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-o…

Bharat Shah, Indore vs. The ITO3(4), Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal ITANo

ITA 181/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Shah Indore PAN No.ALWPS2185B : Appellant V/s ITO-3(4) Indore : Respondent Appellant by Shri Pankaj Shah, AR Respondent by Shri Amit Soni, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 24.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 31 .01.2022 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Assessee are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption…

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

…ed that since substantial amount of the consideration was paid within the time, the deduction u/s 54 of the Act will be available, though the possession and registration was made later. Asstt. Year 2015-16 7 7.5 In the case of Smt. Shashi Varma v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 106, the Hon’ble MP high court held that section 54 of the Act only says that within two years, the assessee should have constructed the house but that does not mean that the construction of house should necessarily be completed within two years. What it means is that the construction of house should be completed as far as possible within two years.…