Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 75 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs T.N. Aravinda Reddy on 1 February, 1978

Hanchipura Channaiah ... vs Income Tax Officer Ward Intl, Taxation ... on 4 November, 2025

"3. The Assessing Officer, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 on the ground that he did not become the owner of the property, as the said transaction was not IT(IT)A No.258/Bang/2025 HanchipuraChannaiah Nandakishore, Bangalore Page 10 of 16 evidenced by registration thereof as provided under section 17 of the Registration Act. For the purpose of attracting the provisions of section 54, it is not necessary that the assessee should become the owner of the property. Section 54 speaks of purchase. Moreover, the ownership of the property may have different connotations in different statutes. The question which arises for consideration appears to be squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy[1979] 120 ITR 461 where it has been held that the word 'purchase' occurring in section 54(1) of the Act had to be given its common meaning, viz., buy for a price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Each release in this case was a transfer of the releasor's share for consideration to the release and the transferee, the assessee, "purchased" the share of each of his brothers and the assessee was, therefore, entitled to the relief under section 54(1).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Prakash Timaji Dhanjode (Legal Heir Of ... on 26 November, 2001

In CIT v. Aravinda Reddy (T. N.) [1979] 120 ITR 46 (SC), the assessee invested the capital gains in obtaining a deed of release from other co-owners of a property. The Revenue contended that Section 54 contemplates a purchase and not a release. Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the release is also purchase of shares of co-owners and the nomenclature does not make any difference and allowed the deduction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sri Rajaram vs Income-Tax Officer on 17 July, 1986

In fact the Supreme Court in T.N. Aravinda Reddy's case (supra), held that acquisition through release from other co-owners amounts to purchase within the meaning of Section 54(1). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found no reason to divorce the meaning of the word 'purchase' as buying for a price or the equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards old debt or for other monetary consideration, from the legal meaning of that word in Section 54(1). Their Lordships further observed :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dcit., (International Taxation)-1, ... vs Syama Reddy Mali Reddy, Hyderabad on 3 September, 2025

18. We find that the issue in hand revolves around the adjudication of the term "purchase" as used in sub-section (2) of Section 54F of the Act. In our considered view, once it is proved that the assessee had within the prescribed period invested towards purchase of the new residential property, then, despite that the legal title in the said property was not passed or transferred to her within a period of two years from the date of sale of the old property, it would not disentitle her from claiming deduction under Section 54F of the Act. We say so, for the reason that the word 'purchase' as used in sub-section (2) of Section 54F is not restricted or confined to a registered sale deed or even to possession, but has a wider connotation. We concur with the Ld. CIT(Appeals), who, after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 120 ITR 46 (SC), had observed that the provisions of Section 54F, being an analogous section, calls for a more liberal interpretation and application, as the intent of the section was to encourage investment in residential house by an individual or a Hindu 15 ITA No.366/Hyd/2025 Syama Reddy Mali Reddy Undivided Family out of the sale proceeds earned.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukund M. Altekar,, Pune vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 23 June, 2017

14. Both the authorities below had relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (supra) to deny the claim of deduction to the assessee. In the facts of the said case, the family properties were partitioned between four brothers leaving in common a large house in the occupation of their mother. The eldest, who was the respondent before the apex court, sold his own house and out of funds received, he acquired the common house from his three brothers, who executed three release deeds for consideration of Rs.30,000/- each. The question before the apex court was that whether these three release deeds amount to purchase of house and then the assessee would be entitled to the claim of benefit of section 54(1) of the Act i.e. the question was whether the release deeds by sharers in favour of one of them whereby joint ownership of all became separate ownership of one amount to purchase of house property within the meaning of section 54(1) of the Act. The apex court held that each release, in the said circumstances, was a transfer of releasor‟s share for consideration to the releasee. The apex court further held that there was no reason to divorce the ordinary meaning of the word „purchase‟ as buying for price or equivalent price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration from the legal meaning of that word in section 54(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court‟s decision and had observed that it was held by the apex court that the word „purchase‟ must be given its common meaning as buying for a price or payment. We do not agree with the principle applied by the Assessing Officer as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been considered in entirety. The apex court goes on to say that purchase is as buying for price or equivalent price by payment in kind or adjustment towards an old debt or for any other monetary consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further went on to say that if you sell your house and make a profit, but if you buy or build an 13 ITA No. 1978/PUN/2014 Mukund M Altekar another house, subject to the conditions of section 54(1) of the Act, you are exempt. We find that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the other hand helps the case of assessee. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction under section 54/54F of the Act. Reversing the order of CIT(A), we allow the claim of assessee. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jiwan Parkash, Bathinda vs Department Of Income Tax on 19 February, 2015

Further, there is no evidence on record which shows that there were two separate houses on plot No.79, Sector 6, Panchkula, one belonging to Sh.Hargobind Goyal and the other belonging to the assessee. This is further strengthened that sub-division is not allowed within the boundary of a single plot by the Urban Devlopment Authorities. All these facts show that the asset purchased by the assessee is not an independent residential house but only ½ share in the plot No.79, Sector 6, Panchkula has been purchased and for all practical purposes, the entire property was already owned by the assessee and Sh.Hargobind Goyal was a co-owner in name only. The case law relied upon by the assessee is not relevant here as in that case, the property of HUF was partitioned and one of the coparcener purchased the share of other coparceners after the partition of HUF, and in this way, purchase of new asset took place but in the case under consideration, no new asset was purchased by the assessee. In view of the above, the assessee is not entitled for claim of exemption of Rs.30,00,000/- u/s 54F of the Act which has been allowed to him at the time of original assessment. Accordingly, the same is withdrawn."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandrakant S. Choksi Huf, Mumbai vs Assessee on 26 November, 2014

4.2 So far as the issue, whether the assessee can purchase fractional interest, that is, buying of share in the property and whether it can be held as purchase or not, we find that this issue, in principle, is settled by the decision of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. T.N.Aravinda Reddy (supra). In the case before the Hon' ble Supreme Court, four brothers were the members of HUF, who had partitioned a joint family property, leaving an undivided common house. The three brothers executed a release deed in favour of the elder brother for a consideration which was treated as purchase of the house by the elder brother. The elder brother had sold one of his houses and out of the sale proceeds, paid the consideration to his brothers to acquire their shares in the house. In this context it was held that the elder brother would be entitled to relief u/s 54(1).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next