(1) Mahavir Prasad Gupta v. JCIT

5 SOT 353Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#20999 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing (1) Mahavir Prasad Gupta v. JCIT

M/S. Khadeer Ahmed Khan, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2115/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. Khadeer Ahmed Khan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.42, Doddkallasandara, Income-Tax, Kankapura Main Road, Vs. Circle – 4(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 062. Bengaluru. Pan : Aavpk 1742 Q Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 07.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri. H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 54F

…on u/s.54F cannot be denied. Mere non residential use subsequently would not render the property ineligible for benefit u/s.54F, if it is otherwise a residential property, as held by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs JCIT (5 SOT 353). Respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) had rightly allowed deduction u/s.54F." 8. Facts and circumstances in the present case being similar to those considered by the Tribunal in the above case, consistent with the view taken in the above order, to which one of us, viz. the author member, i…

A.M.Subramanian, Madurai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the result the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 860/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri S. Mohd. Mustafa, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54F

…r residential purpose and therefore benefit U/s.54F of the Act has to be granted on the entire value of the building constructed. He further relied in the decision of various judicial authorities cited herein below:- (1) Mahavir Prasad Gupta V. JCIT in [2006] 5 SOT 353 (Delhi) – Delhi Tribunal (2) Amit Gupta V. DCIT in [2006] 6 SOT 403 (Delhi) (3) Shyamala Tandon V. Income Tax Officer in [2014] 43 taxmann.com 155 (Hyderabad – Trib.) (4) K. Pratibha V. ITO in [2014] 45 taxmann.com 282 (Hyderabad – Trib.) (5) N. Revathi V. ITO in [2014] 45 taxmann.com 30 (Hyderabad – Trib.) He therefore pleaded that the addition…

ACIT, Madurai vs. A.M.Subramanian, Madurai

In the result the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1196/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri S. Mohd. Mustafa, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54F

ITO, Trichy vs. N.Chandran, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1791/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 68Section 69

…the Act. Mere non residential use subsequently could not render the property ineligible for benefit u/s 54F if it is otherwise a residential property. This view has been held also by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Prasad Gupta vs JCIT (5 SOT 353). Respectfully following the said decisions mentioned supra the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the deduction U/S 54F in the case of the appellant. The appellant succeeds on this ground of appeal’’. Further on the issue of unexplained cash credit the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) elaborately dealt based on the submissions of the…