Kailash Katkar vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Kailash Katkar, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, passed under Section 143(3) and Section 250 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee filed a return of income on 30th December 2021, disclosing a total income of Rs. 4,19,92,130/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny due to the substantial deduction/exemption claimed under Section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer (A.O) issued notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1) of the Act, calling for details and information substantiating the claim made in the return of income. The assessee responded with submissions and evidences. The A.O found that the assessee disclosed long-term capital gains (LTCG) of Rs. 6,72,94,667/- on the sale of equities and mutual funds and claimed exemption under Section 54F of the Act. However, the A.O denied the claim of exemption, stating that the assessee owned more than one residential property on the date of transfer of capital assets, making him ineligible for the exemption. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who sustained the action of the A.O and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee then filed an appeal with the Hon'ble Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in maintaining additions made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 6,72,94,667/- by rejecting the rightful claim of the appellant under Section 54F of the Act.
• 2. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in maintaining the additions of Rs. 4,16,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of rental income which was waived off for the tenant on account of vacancy due to COVID-19.
• 3. Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not granting relief in respect of an apparent arithmetical mistake made by the Assessing Officer which has resulted in an additional and unintended demand.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Siddhartha Lal Trust vs DCIT

  Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Late Joseph George Ashok George Vattakunnel Rep. by Legal Heir Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II(2), Chennai

• Sh. Kanwar Singh Tanwar Vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

• Vivek Gangadhar Mehendale vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(1)

  Mumbai bench

• Kanta Rani vs. The ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

  Chandigarh bench

• Bijaya Tah Vs ITO Ward-2(4), Burdwan

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2015-2016Allowed