ACIT (2009) 31 SOT 38 7. ITO v. Ms. Shushila M. Jhaveri (2007) 107 ITD 327 8. CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri

143 ITD 126Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#19126 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing ACIT (2009) 31 SOT 38 7. ITO v. Ms. Shushila M. Jhaveri (2007) 107 ITD 327 8. CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri

Ravi Agrawal, Indore vs. The PCIT-2, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniravi Agrawal Pr. Cit 101-102, Kanchan Vihar, Indore Vs. Niranjanpur, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aorpa 2161 B Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 263Section 54

…ukminiamma (331 ITR 211) 5. ITO v. Smt. Jyothi K. Mehta (2011) 12 Taxman 440 6. Prem Prakash Bhutani v. ACIT (2009) 31 SOT 38 7. ITO v. Ms. Shushila M. Jhaveri (2007) 107 ITD 327 8. CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri (2013) 81 DTR 33 9. V.R. Karpaam (Smt.) v. ITO (2013) 143 ITD 126 10. ACIT v. Deepak S. Bheda (2012) 52 SOT 327 (Mum.) (Trib.) 11. ACIT v. Leela P. Nanda (2006) 286 ITR (AT) 113 (Mum.) Page 4 of 6 Ravi Agrawal Page 5 of 6 12. CIT vs. Late Khoobchand M. Makhija [TS-706-HC2013(KAR)] 13. Navin Jolly Vs. ITO (ITA No. 320 of 2011 dtd 18.06.2020) 14. Mohammadanif Sultanali Pradhan DCIT (Ahd) (Trib) (UR 8. On the oth…

Dinesh Chandra Dutta, Aligarh vs. CIT A, Aligarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 786/AGR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member Assessment year: 2015-16 Mr. Dinesh Chandra Dutta Bhargava vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), C/o N.A. Siddiqi, Advocate, Aligarh. 7, Anon House, Civil Lines, Aligarh. PAN: ABMPB3271D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. I.A. Siddiqi, Advocate Smt. Sita Srivastava, Sr. DR Respondent by Date of Hearing 05.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement 08.03.2021 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2915-16 is directed against the order dated…

Ram Mohan Rai, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 234BSection 54

…time, investment in residential property is allowable, even though spread over multiple flats. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Smt. V.R. Karpagam v. ITO[2013] 34 taxmann.com 98/143 ITD 126 (Chennai-Trib.), and the decision in the case of Dr. Smt. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT[2012] 23 taxmann.com 299/204 Taxman 628, and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of CIT v. G. Saroja [TC (Appeal) No. 656 of 2015, dated 4-1-2012]. The learned counsel referred to the circular of the CBDT, in circular No. 1 of 2015, dated…

ITO, Chennai vs. M.Mani, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3457/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3457/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. M. Mani, Non Corporate Ward 7(4) No.1, Thirumani Amman Nagar, 2Nd Avenue, Thirumangalam, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West, Chennai 600 040. [Pan Bdipm 2405F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Durai Pandian, Sr.A.RFor Respondent: None

Section 54F

…gument of the assessee, in his appeal before ld. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was that ‘’residential house’’ could not be considered in singular. Reliance was placed on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of V.R. Karpagam vs. ITO (2013) 143 ITD 126. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was of the opinion that by virtue of the decision of the Co-ordinate bench in the case of V.R. Karpagam (supra) deduction u/s.54F of the Act could not be denied even were multiple flats were acquired by an assessee. :- 3 -: Now before us, the ld. Departmental Representative strongly 4. assailing the or…