Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 76 (1.43 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.R. Subramanya Bhat on 9 June, 1986

Kapil Kumar Agarwal, Gurgaon vs Dcit, Gurgaon on 30 April, 2019

"The question for consideration is whether exemption on capital gains could be refused to the assessee simply on the ground that the construction of the Surya Nagar, Agra house, had begun before the sale of the Link house. Similar question came up for consideration before the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. J. R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 571. In the case before the Karnataka High Court, the date of the sale of the old building was February 9, 1977. The completion of the construction of the new building was in March, 1977, although the commencement of construction started in 1976. On these facts, the Karnataka High Court held that it was immaterial that the construction of the new building was started before the sale of the old building. We fully agree with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court. The Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that capital gains arising from the sale of the Golf Link house to the extent it got invested in the construction of the Surya Nagar house, will be exempted under section 54 of the Act."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saroj Goenka,Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 30(1), Kolkata on 12 January, 2026

and CIT v. J.R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 571/[1986] 28 Taxman 578 (Kar). These two cases deal with interpretation of Section 54 of the Act. The said Section is pari materia to Section 54F. The only distinction being that Section 54 applies to investment in a new house where the original asset sold was/is residential property and provisions of Section 54F were/are applicable to all other assets, not being a residential house.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, New Delhi vs Shri Pradeep Sobti, New Delhi on 10 May, 2019

Reliance was placed on the judgment of Honorable Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhatt (1887) 165 ITR 571 (Karn), wherein it 35 has been held at it is immaterial whether the construction of the new house was started before the ate of transfer, it should be completed after the date of transfer of the original house. In the present case, he had booked a semi finished flat with the builder, namely DLF Universal Limited in the residential group housing complex named as Magnolias DLF Golf Links) and as per agreement, he was to make payment in installments and the builder was to construct the unfinished bare shell of flat for finishing by the buyers on their own to make it live-able (having specifications set out in Annexure-V) as per clause 10.1 of the said agreement. It is also noted that Builder Company offered vide letter dated 30.12.2011 that the Occupation certificate has been received from the Competent Authorities and the six months period for completing the interiors, in terms of agreement shall commence from 01.01.2012 and is to be completed before 30.06.2012. Builder Company's letter dated 20.03.2012 and 20.01.2012 offered to finalise the details of interiors and extended the time for completion of interior to 30.09.2012 and finally possession was granted on 30.10.2013. It has therefore to be considered as a case of construction of new residential house and not purchase of a flat. Since the flat has been allotted to the assessee by the builder who would fall in the category of other institutions mentioned in the circulars, it has to be 36 taken as a case of construction of the residential flat and not as a purchase of a residential flat. Therefore, he had time window of three years period available to him commencing from 21.12.2011 till 21.12.2014 to construct a house property. Having come to this conclusion that it is case of construction it is now to be seen if the assessee fulfils the conditions laid down under s. 54(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee has occupied the house property during 2013 vide letter dated 30.10.2013 offering occupation of House property. Further, the assessee has claimed the deduction on amount invested till the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 33 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Acit, New Delhi vs Smt. Seema Sobti, New Delhi on 15 May, 2019

Reliance was placed on the judgment of Honorable Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhatt (1887) 165 ITR 571 (Karn), wherein it has been held at it is immaterial whether the construction of the 33 new house was started before the ate of transfer, it should be completed after the date of transfer of the original house. In the present case, he had booked a semi finished flat with the builder, namely DLF Universal Limited in the residential group housing complex named as Magnolias DLF Golf Links) and as per agreement, he was to make payment in installments and the builder was to construct the unfinished bare shell of flat for finishing by the buyers on their own to make it live-able (having specifications set out in Annexure-V) as per clause 10.1 of the said agreement. It is also noted that Builder Company offered vide letter dated 30.12.2011 that the Occupation certificate has been received from the Competent Authorities and the six months period for completing the interiors, in terms of agreement shall commence from 01.01.2012 and is to be completed before 30.06.2012. Builder Company's letter dated 20.03.2012 and 20.01.2012 offered to finalise the details of interiors and extended the time for completion of interior to 30.09.2012 and finally possession was granted on 30.10.2013. It has therefore to be considered as a case of construction of new residential house and not purchase of a flat. Since the flat has been allotted to the assessee by the builder who would fall in the category of other institutions mentioned in the circulars, it has to be taken as a case of construction of the residential flat and not as a 34 purchase of a residential flat. Therefore, he had time window of three years period available to him commencing from 21.12.2011 till 21.12.2014 to construct a house property. Having come to this conclusion that it is case of construction it is now to be seen if the assessee fulfils the conditions laid down under s. 54(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee has occupied the house property during 2013 vide letter dated 30.10.2013 offering occupation of House property. Further, the assessee has claimed the deduction on amount invested till the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Amritlal B Sahu, Mumbai vs Ito 18(1)(2), Mumbai on 31 August, 2018

10. Section 54 of the Act provides the condition that the construction of new residential house should be completed within 3 years from the date of transfer of old residential house. According to Ld A.R, section 54 is silent about commencement of construction and hence commencement of construction can precede the date of sale of old asset. In the instant case, the assessee had booked the flat much prior to the date of old flat. We notice that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. J.R.Subramanya Bhat (supra) that commencement of construction is not relevant for the purpose of sec. 54 and it is only the completion of Mr. Mustansir I. Tehsildar construction. The above said ratio was followed in the case of Asst.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito, Jaipur vs Saroj Devi Agarwal, Jaipur on 5 October, 2017

"The question for consideration is whether exemption on capital gains could be refused to the assessee simply on the ground that the construction of the Surya Nagar, Agra house had begun before the sale of the Golf Link house. Similar question came up for consideration before the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhat (1987) 64 CTR (Kar) 286: (1987) 165 ITR 571 (KAr) : TC 22R.219. In the case before the Karnataka High Court, the date of the sale of the old building was 9th Feb., 1997. The completion of the construction of the new building was in March, 1977, although the commencement of construction started in 1976. On these facts, the Karnataka High Court, held that it was immaterial that the construction of the new building was started before the sale of the old building. We fully agree with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal was right in holding that capital gains arising from the sale of the Golf Link house to the extent it got invested in the construction of the Surya Nagar house, will be exempted under s. 54 of the Act."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 27 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax - Xv vs Bharti Mishra on 18 December, 2013

"The question for consideration is whether exemption on capital gains could be refused to the assessee simply on the ground that the construc-tion of the Surya Nagar, Agra house, had begun before the sale of the Link house. Similar question came up for consideration before the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. J. R. Subramanya Bhat [1987] 165 ITR 571. In the case before the Karnataka High Court, the date of the sale of the old building was February 9, 1977. The completion of the con-struction of the new building was in March, 1977, although the com-mencement of construction started in 1976. On these facts, the Karnataka High Court held that it was immaterial that the construction of the new building was started before the sale of the old building. We fully agree with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court. The Appellate Tribu-nal was right in holding that capital gains arising from the sale of the Golf Link house to the extent it got invested in the construction of the Surya Nagar house, will be exempted under section 54 of the Act."
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 24 - S Khanna - Full Document

Mr.Mustansir I. Tehsildar, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer 21(2)(3), Mumbai on 18 December, 2017

10. Section 54 of the Act provides the condition that the construction of new residential house should be completed within 3 years from the date of transfer of old residential house. According to Ld A.R, section 54 is silent about commencement of construction and hence commencement of construction can precede the date of sale of old asset. In the instant case, the assessee had booked the flat much prior to the date of old flat. We notice that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. J.R.Subramanya Bhat (supra) that commencement of construction is not relevant for the purpose of sec. 54 and it is only the completion of 6 ITA No. 6108/Mum/2017 Mr. Mustansir I. Tehsildar construction. The above said ratio was followed in the case of Asst.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Phillip Koshy, Delhi vs Dcit Central Circle-29, Delhi on 21 March, 2024

3. The question for consideration is whether exemption on capital gains could be refused to the assessee simply on the ground that the construction of the Surya Nagar, Agra house had begun before the sale of the Golf Link house. Similar question came up for consideration before the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. J.R. Subramanya Bhat (1987) 64 CTR (Kar) 286:(1987) 165 ITR 571 (Kar):TC 22R 219. In the case before the Karnataka High Court, the date of the sale of the old building was 9th Feb., 1977. The completion of the construction of the new building was in March, 1977, although the commencement of construction started in 1976. On these facts, the Karnataka High Court held that it was immaterial that the construction of the new building was started before the sale of the old building. We fully agree with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal was right in holding that capital gains arising from the sale of the Golf Link house to the extent it got invested in the construction of the Surya Nagar house, will be exempted under s. 54 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anshul T. Bhimjyani, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - ... on 31 December, 2018

During the proceedings u/s 263 before the Pr. CIT, the AR of the assessee submitted that the appellant had purchased the residential property on 02.04.1990 and sold the same on 09.11.2012, hence the period of holding is 22 years, which is a long term capital asset and income earned on sale of said flat is long term capital gains. It was stated that the assessee had sold a residential flat in which they were residing Tahnee Heights Co-operative Society Ltd., Petit Hall, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai. Further the assessee sold the said residential flat on 09.11.2012 and construction of the new residential flat were completed on 7th July, within a period of 3 years from the date of transfer. Reliance was placed by the AR on the decision in CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain (1996) 217 ITR 263 (Bom), CIT v. Subramanyam Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571 (Karn.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next