2016 (2) TMI 275 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Late Shri Narinder Singh through his wife and L/H Smt. Shiv Dev Kaur Versus DCIT circle, Sangrur
Scope of Section 2(47)(v) r.w.s. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - JDA entered by assessee - Whether possession as envisaged by Section 2(47) (v) and Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was delivered, and if so, its nature and legal effect? - Held that - The issues involved herein have already been decided by this Court in C.S.Atwal vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another 2015 (7) TMI 878 - PUNJAB & H.....
2016 (2) TMI 90 - ITAT MUMBAI
Gaurav Mathrawala Versus Commissioner of Income Tax -27, Navi Mumbai
Revision u/s 263 - exemption u/s 54F alowed to assessee - Held that - Before the Ld. CIT as well as before us the assessee had duly demonstrated that the assessee had claimed exemption against property purchased at Dosti and another property at Hiranandani Maitry Park was under construction for which only advance was given and assessee had not acquired any possession of the said property. Otherwise also, the said property was jointly held by his .....
2015 (12) TMI 354 - ITAT BANGALORE
Shri. B.V. Satyanarayana Rao Versus Commissioner of Income-tax- IV, Bangalore
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT(A) section 54F of the Act could not be allowed since assessee had returned capital gains after the detection - Held that - CIT in his order mentions that assessee has sold two sites on 24.07.2008, whereas the first property against which exemption u/s.54F of the Act was purchased on 13.03.2008 and the second property was purchased on 06.08.2008. Obviously the first property was purchased prior to the sale of the site.....
2015 (11) TMI 1303 - ITAT DELHI
ITO, Ward 11 (2) , New Delhi Versus Shri Samir Jasuja
Disallowance of notional loss on F&O foreign currency transaction - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that - CIT(A) rightly demolished the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that the said loss is a notional loss and represents marked to market is not correct. We are also in agreement with the conclusion of the CIT(A) that the claim of the assessee is not in pursuance to the notional entry which has been passed on the last date of the financial yea.....
2015 (11) TMI 1443 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Income Tax Officer, Ward 10 (2) , Hyderabad Versus Late K. Jaipal, L/R. of Smt. K. Manjula, Shri K. Murali, Late K. Srinivas Rao, L/R. Smt. K. Geeta Rani, Shri K. Narsing Rao, Shri K. Venu, Shri K. Narayana Rao, Shri Chandrasekhar
Entitlement to deduction under S.54F - whether a residential house stated in S.54/S.54F for allowing deduction means a single residential house or one consisting of multiple units - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that - Merely because a residential house consists of several independent residential units, deduction under S.54/S.54F could not disallowed. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/.....
2016 (1) TMI 456 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Dr. S. Chandra Sekhar Versus ITO Ward-4 Rajahmundry
Revision u/s 263 - Eligibility for the benefit u/s 54F need to be denied as per CIT(A) - Held that - The transfer was completed in terms of section 2(47)(v) by giving possession of the property in terms of the sale agreement dated 13.6.2005 registration was delayed on bonafide reasons which was beyond the control of the assessee and sale deed was executed on 25.11.2005 was only a legal formality. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V.....
2015 (11) TMI 1057 - ITAT MUMBAI
Dr. Ashwin Balchand Mehta Versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 11 (2) , Mumbai
Deduction u/s 54(1) denied - Held that - The assessee had booked the flat with the builder and an allotment letter was given to the assessee. The house was under construction. Under such circumstances it can be safely presumed that the assessee had invested the money for construction of the house through the builder. So the money invested by the assessee within three years from the date of transfer is allowable as deduction under section 54 of th.....
2016 (1) TMI 861 - ITAT PUNE
Dr. (Mrs.) Ranjana S. Nargolkar Versus ITO, Ward-5 (1) , Pune
Addition on account of long term capital gain on transfer of development rights of undivided share in a property - Held that - We observe that the authorities below have erred in holding that the assessee was the absolute owner of the property acquired by her through WILL. As stated earlier the assessee had only lifetime interest in the property with no right of alienation. It was only through a family arrangement that the assessee got absolute r.....
2015 (12) TMI 1075 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Kapil Kumar Agarwal
Entitlement for claim for exemption under section 54F - whether the same amount of sale consideration had not been utilized towards the purchase of property prior to the date of sale as per the said provisions? - whether the assessee in order to avail benefit of Section 54F of the Act is required to utilize the amount for the purchase of the new asset from the sale proceeds of the original capital asset only? - ITAT deleted the addition - Held th.....
2015 (11) TMI 1003 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Chiranji Lal Garg Versus Commissioner of Income tax, Bathinda and another
Computation of capital gain - Transfer exigible to tax by reference to Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - JDA entered by assessee - Whether there was grant and assignment of various rights in the property by the appellant in favour of THDC alongwith handing over physical and vacant possession, the same tantamount to transfer ? - Held that - The issues involved in this appeal.....
2016 (1) TMI 711 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Income Tax Officer, Ward -4 (1) , Visakhapatnam Versus Smt. Lavanya Dhara
Entitlement to exemption u/s 54F - contiguous units - first floor is divided into different residential units - exemption to be allowed to one unit or entire area - Held that - The CIT(A) directed the AO to conduct an enquiry and allow the exemption in respect of one residential unit. In case, the assesse is using the entire first floor area for the purpose of her self-occupation then, AO is directed to allow the deduction in respect of entire fi.....
2016 (1) TMI 656 - ITAT CHENNAI
Mrs. Shirly Sajan Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-XIV (4) , Chennai.
Entitlement to deduction u/s 54F - as per AO assessee has not deposited the sale proceeds into capital gains account scheme before the due date for filing of return of income - CIT(A) restricted the deduction to the extent of amount paid within the due date for filing of return of income under section 139(4) - Held that - deduction under section 54 / 54F cannot be denied simply because sale proceeds were not deposited into capital gains account s.....
2015 (11) TMI 1436 - ITAT JAIPUR
Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1) , Jaipur Versus Bhawani Singh Jadon
Entitlement to deduction U/s 54 - CIT(A) allowed claim - Whether the appellant assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return? - Held that - The ld CIT(A) has not provided any opportunity to the Assessing Officer as no details were submitted by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Before us also no evidence has been placed. The assessee s return is belated. The Assessing Officer is not supposed to enter.....
2015 (12) TMI 132 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Sri A. Ram Prasad Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5, Hyderabad
Computation of capital gain - CIT(A) taking the date of development agreement as the point of time for accrual of Capital Gains while the assessee has offered the Capital Gains for taxation based on factual accrual of gains in the respective years - Held that - Plots were ready for allotment and assessee has in fact offered some capital gains in AY. 2005-06 and construction of houses were also started. As rightly held by the Ld. CIT(A), it is evi.....
2015 (12) TMI 133 - ITAT BANGALORE
Shri B. Veerappa (HUF) Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 7 (2) , Bangalore.
Deductions claimed u/s 54B and 54F denied treating capital gain as short-term capital gain (STCG) - CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by treating the capital gain arising from the transfer of the property as STCG as well as the entire income was assessed in the hands of the assessee-HUF - Held that - The documents filed by the assessee, being additional evidence, are very much relevant and crucial for adjudicating the matter of assessment of .....