Venkata Dilip Kumar v. CIT

419 ITR 298High Court2019#10610 most cited

What is Venkata Dilip Kumar v. CIT authority for?

Deduction under Section 54F or 54 cannot be denied solely for non-deposit of unutilized sale consideration in the capital gains account scheme before filing the return under Section 139(1). The revenue must verify if the sum was utilized within the stipulated time for construction.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Venkata Dilip Kumar v. CIT · section 54F · section 54 · section 139(1) · capital gains account scheme · unutilized sale consideration · deduction · date of transfer

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54FSection 142(1)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 54f(1)section 54fsection 54date of transferlong term capital gainsection 139(1)section 139transferprescribedsection 13appeal before the tribunal

Judgments citing Venkata Dilip Kumar v. CIT

Azizul Ghani, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer - ITO Ward 63(3) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2962/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

…Ghani (AY: 2015-16) 9. Construction cost incurred within three years has to be allowed. Funds not necessarily to be kept in Capital Gain Account Scheme: • Narayan Ravi Prakash Vs. ITO, WP No. 8936 of 2022, Karnataka HC • Venkata Dilip Kumar Vs. CIT, [2019] 419 ITR 298 (Mad), Madras HC • CIT Vs. K Ramachandra Rao, ITA No. 494 & 495 of 2013 & 46 & 47 of 2014, Karnataka HC • Shri Krishnamoorthy Vijayaraghavan Vs. ITO, ITAT Chennai, ITA No. 1976/CHNY/2025, ITAT Chennai • Sarita Gupta Vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad, ITA No. 1174/Del/2022, ITAT Delhi • Jagan nath Singh Lodha Vs. ITO, ITA No. 508 & 514/Jodh/1999, ITAT Jodhpu…

Nitin Bhatia, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1472/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1472/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Nitin Bhatia Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 12 (1) Pan:Akqpb1898R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Y.V Bhanu Narayan Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: CA Y.V Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

…) of the Act is only procedural and directory in nature and cannot override the substantive provision contained in section 54(1). In support, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkata Dilip Kumar v. CIT (2021) 419 ITR 298 (Mad.), wherein in para nos. 14 to 17, the Hon’ble High Court has clearly held that section 54(2) of the Act cannot be read in isolation and that once the assessee satisfies the requirement of section 54(1) of the Act, the benefit cannot be denied for mere procedural non-compliance under section 54(2) of the Act. It was further submitted that the…

Jojo, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 769/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jojo .......... Appellant Kattalapeedika House, Mattathur, Thrissur [Pan: Bycpj5296A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vibin K.K., Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is An Individual. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed By The Appellant. Based On The Information That The Appellant Had Sold Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs. 20,00,000/- The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 28.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vibin K.K., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54

…as under the bona fide belief that 3 Jojo income is below taxable limit, therefore, no return of income required to be filed. The appellant also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkata Dilip Kumar v. CIT [2019] 419 ITR 298. 6. On the other hand, learned Sr. DR opposed the above submissions and submits that the appellant neither filed the return of income nor deposited the unutilised portion of the sale proceeds of the property sold under the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme as prescribed under subsection (2) of section 54 of the Act. The appellant had not filed any proo…

Krishnamoorthy Vijayaraghavan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1976/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1976/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Krishnamoorthy The Income Tax Officer, Vijayaraghavan, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), 2A, Tulive Antara, Chennai. Old No.4, New No.9, Karpagambal Nagar, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Acppv 0131J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54(2)

…. 10. The Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Avanasiyappan Eswaran vs. ITO in ITA No.1666/CHNY/2025 (order dated 08.09.2025) by following the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Venkata Dilip Kumar vs. CIT reported n (2019) 419 ITR 298 (Madras) had held that non-deposit of unutilized sale consideration of the old asset before filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act in the capital gain account scheme is not fatal and deduction u/s.54F of the Act cannot be denied solely for the said reason. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows: “8. We have heard rival submissions…

Avanasiyappan Eswaran, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Tiruppur

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

ITA 1666/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(4)

…f that the construction of the new house has been completed well within the :- 9 -: stipulated time namely three years from the date of sale of original asset. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Venkata Dilip Kumar vs. CIT reported in (2019) 419 ITR 298 (Madras) had held at para 17 of the judgment as under:- 17. The claim of the assessee for deduction of the disputed sum towards the additional construction cost was rejected only on the ground that the said sum was not deposited in the capital gain account. In view of my findings rendered supra, the Revenue is not justified in making such objecti…

Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 854/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 54B

…56 taxmann.com 163 (Kar) 2. CIT Vs. Smt. B S Shanthakumari (2015) 60 taxmann.com 74 (Kar) 3. CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar (2012) 345 IRE 389 (Kar) 4. Goverdhan Singh Sekhawat Vs. ITO (2019) 102 taxmann.com 50 (Jaipur- Trib) 5. Venkata Dilip Kumar Vs.CIT (2019) 419 ITR 298 (Mad) 6. Ms. Moturi Lakshmi Vs. ITO (2020) 119 taxmann.com 488 (Mad) Page 10 of 14 Goverdhan Lal Yadav ITA No. 854/Ind/2024- AY: 2015-16 7. Smt. Babitha Kemparajee Urs Vs. CIT (2017) 86 taxmann.com 43 (Bang- Trib) 8. Kannan Chandrashekar Vs. ITO (2017) 82 taxmann.com 284 (Chennai- Trib) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that Section 5…

Kiran Rajesh Bhansali, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 914/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54B

…by way of three sale deeds within stipulated time i.e. two years which is not disputed by the Revenue. Coming to the order of this Tribunal in the case of Uddhav Krishna Bankar (supra) by placing reliance in the case of Venkata Dilip Kumar Vs. CIT reported in 419 ITR 298 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras which held that the requirement of depositing in the capital gain account scheme u/s. 54(2) is directory. If the amount is utilized within the stipulated period of two/three years, there can be no denial of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act. In the present case as discussed above that the assessee sold his 60% share in…

Sri. Ramaiah Dorairaj, Bengalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1899/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojarishri Ramaiah Dorairaj, No.2186, Bmkaval, Hal 3Rd Stage, Bangalore-560 075 ….Appellant Pan Abrpd 2580L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadrshi Mishra, Jcit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadrshi Mishra, JCIT (D.R)
Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

…56 taxmann.com 163 (Kar) 2. CIT Vs. Smt. B S Shanthakumari (2015) 60 taxmann.com 74 (Kar) 3. CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar (2012) 345 IRE 389 (Kar) 4. Goverdhan Singh Sekhawat Vs. ITO (2019) 102 taxmann.com 50 (Jaipur-Trib) 5. Venkata Dilip Kumar Vs.CIT (2019) 419 ITR 298 (Mad) 6. Ms. Moturi Lakshmi Vs. ITO (2020) 119 taxmann.com 488 (Mad) 7. Smt. Babitha Kemparajee Urs Vs. CIT (2017) 86 taxmann.com 43 (Bang-Trib) 8. Kannan Chandrashekar Vs. ITO (2017) 82 taxmann.com 284 (Chennai-Trib) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that Section 54F(4) of the Act stipulates that for claiming the benefit of Capital Gai…

ITO, Corporate Ward - 2 (2), Chennai vs. Smt. Rekha Shetty, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2777/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S.Jayaraman & C.O. No.106/Chny/2019 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vijaya Prabha,Addl.CIT,D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND C.O. No.106/Chny/2019 Assessment year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Rekha Shetty, O/o Corporate Ward – 2(2), No. 359,North Main Road, 5th Room No.514, floor, Anna Nagar West, Wanaparthy Block,121,M G Road, Chennai 600 101. Chennai. [ PAN AAHPR 3883 R] (Appellant) (Respondent/ Cross Objector) Revenue by : Ms. Vijaya Prabha,Addl.CIT,D.R A…

Gobindram Hathiramani Chandru, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 956/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 / Chny / 2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Gobindram Hathiramani The Income Tax Officer, Chandru, V. International Taxation Ward -1(1), Rep.By Legal Heir Priti Manohar, Chennai. Hathi Villa, Plot No.861, 13Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040 Pan : Agkpp3895Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2020

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…1,48,42,691/-, the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction U/s.54F of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee 5 I.T.A. No.956/Chny/2018 also relied on the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Venkata Dilip Kumar vs. CIT, reported in 419 ITR 298 (Madras), wherein it was held that the amount for which deduction was sought for U/s.54 of the Act was utilized either for purchasing or constructing residential house within time prescribed U/s.54(1) of the Act, assessee could not be denied benefit of Section 54 of the Act for mere non- compliance of a procedural requirement U/s.54(2) of the Act…

Venkata Dilip Kumar v. CIT (419 ITR 298) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax