29(1), New Delhi v. Virender Singh

104 ITD 365Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#21868 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Judgments citing 29(1), New Delhi v. Virender Singh

Michelle Y. Poonawalla, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

ITA 665/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 57

…acquiring another capital asset i.e. tenancy rights hence, assuming income from property is assessable U/sec.22/23 still, such interest is deductible U/sec.57(iii) of the Income Tax Act'1961. d. The ratio of the decision of ITAT in the case of Virendra Singh [104 ITD 365] is not comparable with the facts of the appellant & hence, its ratio is inapplicable to appellant's case. 6] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for AY 2013-14 on 01.0…

Michelle Y. Poonawalla, Pune vs. DCIT-Cir-7, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

ITA 664/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 57

…acquiring another capital asset i.e. tenancy rights hence, assuming income from property is assessable U/sec.22/23 still, such interest is deductible U/sec.57(iii) of the Income Tax Act'1961. d. The ratio of the decision of ITAT in the case of Virendra Singh [104 ITD 365] is not comparable with the facts of the appellant & hence, its ratio is inapplicable to appellant's case. 6] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of appeal hearing.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for AY 2013-14 on 01.0…

Michelle Y. Poonawalla, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 75/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.75/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Michelle Yohan Poonawalla, The Dy.Cit, Circle-7, Pune. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, 2Nd Vs Floor, Dr.Ambedkar Road, . Opp.Niv, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aanpv 5236 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bharat Patel – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walime & Shir Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune Dated 31.12.2019For The A.Y.2014-15.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Following Grounds Are Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other - On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, 1] The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That - A. In Order To Arrive At Actual Rent As Defined U/Sec.23(1)(D) In Case Of Let Out Property, Expenditure Incurred For Earning Such Rent Shall Be Deducted At Threshold Level Itself. B. Principles Of Real Income Are Ignored While Denying Deduction Of Interest Paid By Appellant For Acquiring Possession Of Property (I.E. Flat No.11, Breach Candy Garden, Mumbai) From Statutory Tenant. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That Payment Of

Section 22Section 23Section 23(1)(d)Section 24Section 57

…cquiring another capital asset i.e. tenancy rights hence, assuming income from property is assessable U/sec.22/23 still, such interest is deductible U/sec.57(iii) of the Income Tax Act’ 1961. d. The ratio of the decision of ITAT in the case of Virendra Singh [104 ITD 365] is not comparable with the facts of the appellant & hence, its ratio is inapplicable to appellant’s case.” 2. Brief facts of the case related to the issue in dispute are that the assessee purchased flat No.11,Breach Candy Garden Mumbai on 06/09/2001 from Z.M. Investments and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and J.P. Hotels Pvt. Ltd for Rs.90,000/- . At that po…