(1) CWT v. K.B. Pradhan

130 ITR 393High Court1981#18965 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing (1) CWT v. K.B. Pradhan

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar vs. Sanjay Nemichand Lohade, Ahmednagar

ITA 982/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 54F

…e' is not defined in the Act. As such, it has to be understood in the normal sense of a house, which could be used for a residence. The term 'residential house' came for discussion before the Orissa High Court in a wealth-tax case in CWT v. KB. Pradhan [19811 130 ITR 393/7 Taxman 220 wherein it was held that the word 'house' used for residential purposes would not include a house property in the process of construction, which is incomplete and not habitable. Only if the house has reached a stage of construction by which it is available for occupation and is otherwise habitable, the assessee can regard the propert…

Ramita Mahendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4535/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Naresh JainFor Respondent: Shri Purushotam Kumar

Section 54

…e has purchased the property for the purpose of residence within the meaning of Section 54 of the IT Act, 1961. Till such time, he had only the right to purchase house property, he added. He relied on the following decisions:-  (1) CWT v. K.B. Pradhan [1981] 130 ITR 393 (Ori.) (2) K.P, Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) (3) CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 31 (AP) (4) Purushottam Govind Bhat v. First ITO [1985] 13 ITD 939 (Bom.) (5) Damodar Raheja v. Eighth ITO [1984] 10 ITD 75 (Mad.). And finally Tribunal decided the issue that in case the assessee is allowed possession of the proper…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5749/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, Circle-3(1), B-1602, Beaumonde बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Apartments, Appa Saheb Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400028 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaipv5796J Shri B. Yadagiri-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

Section 4(1)

…ssee has purchased the property for the purpose of residence within the meaning of section 54 of the IT Act, 1961. Till such time, he had only the right to purchase house property, he added. He relied on the following decisions: (1) CWT v. K.B. Pradhan (1981) 130 ITR 393(Ori.) (2) K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC) (3) CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum (1988)173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 31 (AP) 16 Vembu Vaidyanathan (4) Purushottam Govind Bhat v. First ITO (1985) 13 ITD 939(Bom.) (5) Damodar Raheja v. Eighth ITO (1984) 10 ITD 75(Mad.). 6. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the rival contentions.…

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Uday Kashinath Sathe, Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2343/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Uday Kashinath Sathe, Ward-3(4), 403,404, Happy Valley Phase बनाम/ Room No.9, B-Wing, Vi, Manpada, Vs. 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Nr. Tikujiniwadi, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604 Thane(W)-400604 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Adups7623L

Section 2Section 2(47)Section 54E

…ssee has purchased the property for the purpose of residence within the meaning of section 54 of the IT Act, 1961. Till such time, he had only the right to purchase house property, he added. He relied on the following decisions: (1) CWT v. K.B. Pradhan (1981) 130 ITR 393(Ori.) (2) K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC) (3) CIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum (1988)173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 31 (AP) (4) Purushottam Govind Bhat v. First ITO (1985) 13 ITD 939(Bom.) (5) Damodar Raheja v. Eighth ITO (1984) 10 ITD 75(Mad.). 6. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and the rival contentions. The question before us…