Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax – I, Aaya...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax – I, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur v. M/S. Bhikulal Chandak (Huf)

High Court 27 Aug 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – I, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur v. M/S. Bhikulal Chandak (Huf)
Date of order
27 Aug 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – I, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur v. M/S. Bhikulal Chandak (Huf), the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal under Section 2, Section 54, Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The Income Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPURINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.69/2009 Appellant:- The Commissioner of Income Tax – I, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur. ...Versus... Respondent:- M/s. Bhikulal Chandak (HUF) 100, Abhanyankar Nagar, Nagpur. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri Anand Parchure, Adv. for appellant] CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 27.08.2010 In the present case the assessee in part performance of the contract for sale of immovable property had received advance payment which was deposited in specified bonds. The sale transaction was completed subsequently. The assessee claimed benefit under Section 54 EC of the Income Tax Act in respect of the investments which was allowed by A.O. C.I.T. by invoking powers under Section 263 of the Act sought to deny the benefit. The Tribunal allowed the benefit under Section 54 EC of the Income Tax Act by holding that the expression 'transfer' under Section 2 (47) of the Act has a wider meaning. In part performance of the contract if possession is handed over and there is nothing to show that the assessee has not complied any of the conditions set out in Section 54 EC of the Income Tax Act, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Income Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan