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 366,339 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

Manish Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Late Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR

Section 160Section 160(1)(i)Section 161(1)Section 163Section 2(14)Section 48Section 54F

…t held that where the tax payer had paid the full consideration, obtained the possession of the flat and had actually put the flat to use, exemption u/s 54 cannot be denied though no registered purchase deed was executed. b) In Smt Shashi Varma vs CIT (1997) 224 ITR 106 (MP), Madhya Pradesh High Court have held that where the investment of capital gain in the purchase of a flat had been duly made within two years of the sale, the taxpayer would be entitled to exemption u/s 54, even though the construction was not completed within the statutory time limit. In this connection, the High Court relied upon the CBDT’s…

Rakesh Kumar Kalra, Noida Up vs. ITO Ward-47(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 4647/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

For Appellant: Shri Bhupinderjeet, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Meena, Sr. DR

Section 54

…s of the present case, claim of the assessee is that he had invested full sale consideration, and over and above that, some more money and total investment is at Rs. 64.74 lakhs. 20. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Smt. Shashi Varma 224 ITR 106 has held that while allowing exemption u/s 54 of the Act, investment for acquisition of flat under the Scheme of DDA, where first instalment was paid, was much more than the capital gains, deduction is to be allowed as section 54 does not require that the construction of new house should necessarily be completed within two years where substanti…

Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…uction u/s 54F of the Act is to be allowed in respect of the entire cost of the new flat, he relied on the following decisions : i) CIT Vs. Bharati C. Kothari [244 ITR 352 (Cal)] ii) CIT Vs. J.B. Hilla Wadia [216 ITR 376 (Bom)]. iii) Shashi Verma Vs. CIT [224 ITR 106 (MP)]. Ld.A.R. further submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in a recent decision in the case of PCIT Vs. Vembu Vaidyanath in ITA No.1459/2016 dated 22.01.2019 has held that the date of allotment be considered to be the date on which the purchaser of property can be said to have been acquired the property even though the agreement with…

Anand Jitendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 18(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-2013

ITA 5369/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anand Jitendra Shah, The Assistant Commissioner Of Sdc Exports, 122A, Dutta Income Tax- 18(1), Manditr Compound, Thakurdwar Income Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Road, Vs. Ernest House, Mumbai - 400002 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 4000021 Pan: Anqps6808R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Apurva M. Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore & Chaitanya Anjaria (Drs) Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri Apurva M. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

Section 143Section 50CSection 54F

…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 basi…

ITO 1(2), Gwalior vs. Smt Reena Agrawal, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 54Section 54F

…hich is an integral and vital part of construction of a residential house qualifies for exemption u/s.54F and reliance on the following Judgments including the Judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional M.P. High Court was placed : a. Smt. Shashi Verma V. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 106 (MP) b. CIT v. Sardarmal Kothari and Another [2008] 302ITR 286 (Mad) c. Mrs. Seetha Subrarnaniam v. ACIT 56TTJ (Mad) 417 d. Smt. Rajneet Sandhu v. Dy. CIT [2010] 133TTJ (Chd.) (UO) 64 e. Smt. V.A. Tharabai V. DCIT (2012) 50 SOT 537 f. CIT V. Sri, SambandamUdaykumar Income Tax Appeal No. 175 of 2012 (Karnataka High high Court) g. Smt. Usha Vaid v.…

Dr. Rajinder Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4089/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Rajneesh Behari Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54o

…is not delivered within 4 three years for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, denial is unjustified. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in the cases of (i) Bhavna Cuccria vs ITO, (Chd) 82 Taxmann.com 306; (ii) Smt. Shashi Verma vs CIT, 224 ITR 106 (MP); (iii) Satish Chandra vs AO, 54 ITD 508 (Del); (iv) CIT vs. SambandamUdaykumar, 19 Taxmann.com. 17 (kar); and (vi) Kishore H Galaiya vs ITO, 24 Taxmann.com 11 (Mum) for the principle that it would be incorrect to refuse the benefit u/s 54 of the Act on the ground that the new residential house was not complete within three years of sale of t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-23(3), Mumbai vs. Vishal Dilip Sankhe, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4376/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishore, AR

Section 292BSection 54FSection 56(2)(v)Section 56(2)(vii)

…e 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." 27. The above two circulars were applied in the case of Smt. Shashi Verma [224 ITR 106 (MP)] and it was held that :- "Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Profits on sale of property used for residential house - Assessment year 1982-83 - Whether under Government schedules confining to two years' period for construction and handing over possession thereof is impossible and unworkable under section 54 and, thus,…

Hemdendra K. Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1017/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 14ASection 54Section 54ESection 54F

…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 o 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 basi…

ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Shashanka Ghosh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

Section 54

…ved that intention behind section 54 was to give relief to a person who had transferred his residential house and purchased another residential house. This case clearly comes to the rescue of the assessee. Hon’ble MP High Court in Smt. Shashi Verma vs CIT 224 ITR 106 (MP) and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs Smt. Bharti C. Kothari 244 ITR 352 (Cal.) held that when substantial investment is made in the new property, it should be deemed that sufficient steps had been taken and it would satisfy the requirement of the section 54 of the Act. As per the Hon'ble High Court, the basic purpose behind section 5…

ACIT 23(1), Mumbai vs. T.K. Venkateshwaran, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8538/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 54

…property even though possession is delayed, the assessee would be 5 ITA 8538/Mum/2011 entitled for exemption. The relevant portion of the order of the CIT(A) is extracted below:- “4.5 He has also cited certain case laws i.e. Smt. Shashi Varma vs. CIT [1997J 224 ITR 106 (MP), CIT vs. R.L. Scod (2000) 227 (Delhi), Balraj vs. CIT (2002] 254 ITR 22 (Delhi), SaUsh Chandra Gupta vs. A.O. [1995J 54 1TD 508 and CIT vs. Hilla J.B. Wadia [1995] 216 ITR 376 [Bom]. The appellant has also argued that entire sale proceeds were paid for all these three units merged into one remdential house, the exemption 54 has to be allowed…

Rajpal Trehan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6113/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta &For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR

Section 133B(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 54Section 54F

…o. 667 dated 18.10.1993 issued by the CBDT and reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT & Anr. Vs Smt. B. S. Shanthikumari (2015) 126 DTR 436 (Kar.) " Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad.) " CIT Vs R. L. Sood 245 ITR 727 (Del.) " Smt. Shashi Verma 224 ITR 106 (MP) " Smt. Rajneet Sandhu Vs DCIT (2010) 133 TTJ 64 (Chd.) " Narsimha Raju Rudra Rao Vs ACIT 35 Taxman 90 (Hyd. Trib.) " Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs CIT 196 ITR 188 (SC) " Satish Chandra Gupta Vs AO 54 ITD 508 (Del. Trib.) " CIT Vs Smt. B. B. Shanthakumari 126 DTR 436 (Kar.) " Smt. Ranjneet Sandhu Vs DCIT 133 TTJ 64 (Chd.) " Narashimha Raju Rudra Raju V…

ITO 21(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 2247/MUM/2014[2010-1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

…entire cost of purchase of Rs.12.48 crores was paid by the assessee within a period of three month from the date of sale of old asset, therefore, we find merit in the contention of the assessee. The decision in CIT vs R.L. Sood, (supra), Shashi Verma vs CIT (224 ITR 106) (MP) along with the cases cited before us and also mentioned in the impugned order, supports the case of the assessee. The assessee finally got the new asset registered on 27/03/2012, which was within a period of three years from the date of sale of original asset. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Mrs. Hilla J.B. Wadia…

Pritamlal J Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA 1993/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 54

ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Aakanksha R. Shah, Mumbai

ITA 318/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.318/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Sachchidanand Dube

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 45Section 54Section 54F

…f section 54F, it would be sufficient if the assessee has invested the entire amount of capital gains in the residential / house and accordingly requested the AO to allow the benefit u/s 54F by relying on the decision in the case of Sashi Varma V/s CIT (1997) 224 ITR 106) (MP), CIT V/s R C Sood (2000) 108 Taxmann 227 (Del ) and CIT V/s Sardarmal Kothari. The AO, however, not convinced with the reply of the assessee brought the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,59,79,878/- to tax by rejecting the claim of 54F and thus completed the assessment at an income of Rs.1,67,81,470/- .Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the ass…

ITO 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajiv Bholanath Gupta, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-7(2)(1), Shri Rajiv Bholanath Gupta, Room No.621A, 6Th Floor, 1103, Raheja Acropolis, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Atlantic Deonar Chembur, Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400088 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabpg9848F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Jignes Shah राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist-Dr

Section 54

…agreement and date of registration. Identically Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar Jain vs CIT (2010) 195 taxman 174 decided in favour of the assessee. The ratio laid down in CIT vs R.L. Sood (245 ITR 227)(Del.) and Smt. Shashi Sharma vs CIT (224 ITR 106)(MP) decided in favour of the assessee. Even otherwise, when two views are possible, which favours the assessee, has to be preferred. We are, usefully, reproducing hereunder the relevant provision of section 54 of the Act for ready reference and analysis:- 54. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee be…

T. Shivakumar, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 323/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, Addl.CIT

Section 54

…m 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…

The Commissioner of Income Tax II

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/117/2014HC Delhi12 Aug 2014

Section 54

…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 2014:DHC:3841-DB ITA 117/2014 Page 11 of 14 Shashi Verma (supra), the assessee had invested the sale consideration for purchase of a flat from Delhi Development Authority and had…