Tilokchand & Sons. v. ITO

413 ITR 189High Court2019#3849 most cited

What is Tilokchand & Sons. v. ITO authority for?

A residential house for the purpose of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act can include more than one or plural residential houses, prior to April 1, 2015.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Tilokchand & Sons v. ITO · Section 54 · residential house · plural residential units · capital gains exemption · long-term capital asset · 2019

Also reported as

105 Taxmann.com 151

Sections most often in play

Section 13(2) of the General Clauses ActSection 143(3)Section 1897Section 263Section 54Section 54F

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54(2)section 54elong-term capital assetsection 13(2)section 55asection 54ecindexed cost of acquisitionsection 55section 53asection 54section 53

Judgments citing Tilokchand & Sons. v. ITO

SANJEEV BEHL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAX WARD, 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5345/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar G Subramanyam, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 250Section 56Section 80

…bai has held that prior to 1-4-2015 word la\nresidential house' as occurring in section 54 can include more than one or\nplural residential house. While deciding so the ITAT, Mumbai has relied upon\nthe decisions in the case of Tilokchand & Sons v. ITO [2019] 413 ITR 189\n(Mad.), CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa [2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar), CIT v.\nKhoobchand M. Makhija [2014] 223 Taxman 189 (Kar) and CIT v. Gunamal\nJain [2017] 394 ITR 666 (Mad).\nIn the case of the appellant, the appellant has sold two residential\nproperties on 18.02.2016, therefore, benefit u/s 54 could not be given to the\nappellant.\n7.3.5 The A.O. ca…

RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-30(2) , DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2272/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2272/Del/2024, A.Y. 2012-13 Sh. Rajendra Agrawal ITO, C/o. Raj Kumar Associates, Ward-30(2), Chartered Accountants L7A, Vs. Delhi LGF, South Ext. Part-II, Delhi PAN: ACRPA4020F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Raj Kumar, CA & Sh. Suraj Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Sh. P. N. Barnwal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement 26/07/2024 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This appeal for the Assessment Year (In Short, the ‘AY’)…

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Farooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 PAN: AHUPM7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented by : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni Date of conclusion of Hearing : 03.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.05.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHM…

ANU GERA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Accordingly Ground No. 3 of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2626/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R
Section 143(1)Section 45Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA [ DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2626/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2009-10) Smt. Anu Gera, Income Tax Officer, S-505, Greater Kailash-II, Vs. Ward : 22 (1) New Delhi – 110 048. New Delhi. PAN No. ADGPG7714G ( RESPONDENT ) ( APPELLANT ) Assessee by : Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate & Ms. Mansi Jain, C. A. Department by : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R. Date of Hearing 02.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 05.04.2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR US, JM 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 27.…

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Smt. Ritu Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 21-B, Pocket-D, SFS Flats Ward 60(4), Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 096 PAN BIEPS0468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Hiren Mehta, CA Department by : Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date of pronouncement 24. 02.2023 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.10.2016 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income…

PARTHIBAN KALAVATHI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 11, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1131/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1131/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Parthiban Kalavathi, The Asst. Commissioner Of 74, Pidariar Koil Street, Vs. Income Tax, George Town, Non Corporate Circle-11, Chennai – 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Cxrpk-1062-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, In Ita

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…ssee has been allotted 4 residential Flats against the sale of her ancestral land or in lieu of development of her ancestral land. We noted that this issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tilokchand & Sons Vs. ITO [2019] 413 ITR 189 (Madras), wherein a residential house as occurring in s. 54(1) of the Act can include more than one or plural residential house. The Hon’ble High court has considered even the amendment which is effective from 01.04.2015 and applicable far and from assessment year 2015-16 and the relevant assessment year before us 2014-15. Hence, the amendmen…

RAJKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 641/CHNY/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia (C.A) for Shri BFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeeptha (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)

…properties has been restricted by Ld. AO to the extent of investment made in one house property only. 2. During hearing, it transpires that the issue is covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Trilokchand & Sons V/s ITO (413 ITR 189) which has not been considered by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. In the said background, our adjudication would be as under. 3. The assessee sold a residential property and earned Long-Term Capital Gains of Rs.42.64 Lacs. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 54 against investment in three properties. However, Ld. AO restricted the deduction to t…

VENKATESHARAIYER SUBRAMANIAN,HOSUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, HOSUR

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1594/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1 राव, "ाियक सद3 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद3 के सम9। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1594/Chny/2019 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Venkatesharaiyer Subramanian ACIT बनाम/ No.B-33 Thally Housing Board Colony, Circle-1, Vs. Thally Road, Hosur-635 109. Hosur. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. ACPPS-8184-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri S. Srid…

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4147/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR CIT
Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 40Section 54

…ne residential house’ was substituted. We find that while deciding the issue whether word 'a residential house' as occurring in section 54(1) can include more than one or plural residential house, Hon’ble Madras High Court in Tilokchand & Sons v/s ITO, [2019] 413 ITR 189 (Madras), after considering the similar amendment vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 in section 54 of the Act w.e.f 01/04/2015, observed as under: ―19. A closer and bare reading of the aforesaid Explanatory Notes to the provisions of the said Act, clearly shows that the said amendment was intended to be specifically applied only prospectively with e…

SHRI RAJEEV NATARAJ LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI P NATARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1st Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. PAN: AHAPN9475D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is fi…

FAZELAAZHAR,OOTY vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, OOTY

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

ITA 425/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 425/CHNY/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014 - 15 Shri Fazelaazhar, The ACIT, 10, Alexandra Cottage, v. Cirlce-1, 2nd Floor, State Bank Road, Cash Bazaar, Ootacamund, Udhagamandalam – 643 001. Ootacamund, Udhagamandalam – 643 001. PAN : AARPF 6529Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, A…

SAROJ ARORA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 59(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 7557/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 Saroj Arora Ito B-85, Swasthya Vihar, Vs Ward- 59 (3) New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aaepa0683R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 54Section 54(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Saroj Arora ITO B-85, Swasthya Vihar, Vs Ward- 59 (3) New Delhi New Delhi PAN No.AAEPA0683R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Piyush Kaushik, Advocate Shri Ajay Bhagwani, FCA Respondent by Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR. Date of hearing: 16/12/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 13/01/2022 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-19, New Delhi dated 08.09.2017 pertaining to A.Y.2013…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD vs. PANDURANGA RAO VADDEPALLY , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 59/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Bhupathi Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Aoipv 4558A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Panduranga Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Anppp 8702J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54F

…D 325 (ITAT, Hyd.) 3. CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil, 352 ITR 418 (AP – HC) 4. CIT Vs. D. Ananda Basappa, 309 ITR 329 5. CIT Vs. Gita Duggal, 357 ITR 153 6. Arun K. Thiagarajan Vs. CIT, 193 DTR 153) 7. CIT Vs. Gumanmal Jain, 394 ITR 666 8. Tilokchand and Sons Vs. ITO, 413 ITR 189 9. K. Jaipal & Others, ITA NO. 1188/Hyd/2015 and others, dated 19/11/2015. :- 14 -: ITA No. 1826 & 59/Hyd/2019 Bhupathi Ra V and another, Hyd. 4.2 Considering the above judgements cited by the ld. AR of the assessee, there was a mistake apparent on record in the order passed in ITA Nos. 732, 889 & 890/Hyd/2019 dated 18/06/2021 and, therefore, th…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD vs. BHUPATHI RAO VADDEPALLY , HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1826/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Bhupathi Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Aoipv 4558A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Panduranga Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Anppp 8702J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54F

…D 325 (ITAT, Hyd.) 3. CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil, 352 ITR 418 (AP – HC) 4. CIT Vs. D. Ananda Basappa, 309 ITR 329 5. CIT Vs. Gita Duggal, 357 ITR 153 6. Arun K. Thiagarajan Vs. CIT, 193 DTR 153) 7. CIT Vs. Gumanmal Jain, 394 ITR 666 8. Tilokchand and Sons Vs. ITO, 413 ITR 189 9. K. Jaipal & Others, ITA NO. 1188/Hyd/2015 and others, dated 19/11/2015. :- 14 -: ITA No. 1826 & 59/Hyd/2019 Bhupathi Ra V and another, Hyd. 4.2 Considering the above judgements cited by the ld. AR of the assessee, there was a mistake apparent on record in the order passed in ITA Nos. 732, 889 & 890/Hyd/2019 dated 18/06/2021 and, therefore, th…

ROBIN SINGH CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 29(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7074/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Robin Singh Chauhan, Vs Acit, 100/1, Gautam Nagar, Circle-29(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepc9857F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venkatesh Chaurasia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-10, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2012- 13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Long-Term Capital Gain & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 28Th July, 2012 Declaring The Total Income At Rs2,61,98,009/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Shown An Income Of Rs.2,46,33,865/- Under The Head ‘Long- Term Capital Gain.’ The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act For An Amount Of Rs.2,05,71,400/- On Account Of Investment In Two Properties. The Calculation Of The Cost Of Acquisition Of The New Property As Submitted By The Assessee & Reproduced By The Ao Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Robin Singh Chauhan, Vs ACIT, 100/1, Gautam Nagar, Circle-29(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAEPC9857F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venkatesh Chaurasia, CA Revenue by : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27th September, 2017 of the CIT(A)-10, New Delhi, r…

B.SUNDARARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 95/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

For Respondent: Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…building or address and thus, the both the case law have no application to the facts of the present case and pleaded for reversing the findings of the ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, by filing copy of the decision in the case of Tilokchand & Sons v ITO [2019] 413 ITR 189 (Mad), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue raised in the appeal of the Revenue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee besides, supporting the order passed by the ld. CIT (A). 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material placed on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including the…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 18(1), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. B SUNDARAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 431/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

For Respondent: Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…building or address and thus, the both the case law have no application to the facts of the present case and pleaded for reversing the findings of the ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, by filing copy of the decision in the case of Tilokchand & Sons v ITO [2019] 413 ITR 189 (Mad), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue raised in the appeal of the Revenue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee besides, supporting the order passed by the ld. CIT (A). 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material placed on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including the…

NINA LUTHRA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3861/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Nina Luthra, F No 20, Sector-37, Vs. Ito, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Ward-1(2), Pan: Actpl6023F Noida (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 69

…wo adjoining residential unit. The ld AR submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153, Hon‟ble Madras High Court in Tilokchand and Sons v. ITO (2019) 413 ITR 189 / 308 CTR 364/ 263 Taxman 713/ 177 DTR 165(Mad) (HC), Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in Arun K. Thiagarajan v. CIT(Appeals) (2020) 427 ITR 190 /193 DTR 153/ 272 Taxman 235 (Karn)(HC) and CIT Vs. Rukmaniamma 331 ITR 211. The ld DR submitted that investment in two units is not permissible and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been dist…

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…aka High court has dealt with this issues in Arun K. Thiagarajan Vs Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-II [2020] 117 taxmann.com 270 (Karnataka) following the decisions of CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma [2011] 331 ITR 211 (Kar.), Tilokchand and Sons v. ITO [2019] 413 ITR 189 (Mad.) and CIT v. Gita Duggal [2013] 357 ITR 153 (Delhi) and has held that :- “10. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made at the bar, we deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 54(1) of the Act, which read, prior to its amendment by Finance (No.2) A…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…aka High court has dealt with this issues in Arun K. Thiagarajan Vs Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-II [2020] 117 taxmann.com 270 (Karnataka) following the decisions of CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma [2011] 331 ITR 211 (Kar.), Tilokchand and Sons v. ITO [2019] 413 ITR 189 (Mad.) and CIT v. Gita Duggal [2013] 357 ITR 153 (Delhi) and has held that :- “10. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made at the bar, we deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 54(1) of the Act, which read, prior to its amendment by Finance (No.2) A…

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

Tilokchand & Sons. v. ITO (413 ITR 189) — Cited in 31 Judgments | BharatTax