ACIT v. Sunder Kaur Sujan Singh

67 SOT 208Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#25449 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Judgments citing ACIT v. Sunder Kaur Sujan Singh

Sowmya Srikanth, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1335/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1335/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Smt. Sowmya Srikanth, Vs The Income Tax Officer, No.34/8, Sadhullah Street, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. Pan: Aegps0056Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr.S. Pandian, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.S. Pandian, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1335/CHNY/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Smt. Sowmya Srikanth, Vs The Income Tax Officer, No.34/8, Sadhullah Street, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. PAN: AEGPS0056Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by…

Alexande Zachariah, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 805/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 10.07.2019
Section 144ASection 54Section 54(1)Section 54o

…Act, cannot be availed in case of construction i.e., available only in the case of purchase. He further relied on the decisions of the Mumbai ITAT in the cases of ACIT vs. Sunder Kaur Sujan Singh in [2005] 3 SOT 206 & Farida A. Dunderpurwala vs. ITO [2015] 67 SOT 208. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee is on appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee felt that instead of selling the residential house wherein he was residing and then searching for a new residential house, he thou…

ACIT, Cir.- 17(1), Mumbai vs. Abhay Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4983/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Gubgutra (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajen Damani (DR)
Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54F

…with builder prior to date of transfer of original long term capital asset, the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F in respect of cost of new flat- ITA No. 4983 Mum 2016-Shri Abhay Ramesh Kumar Agarwal (a) Farida A. Dungerpurwala vs. ITa, 67 SOT 208 (Mum), (b) Smt. Ushaben Jayantilal Sodhan vs. ITA, 149 ITD 1 (Ahmedabad), and (c) ACIT vs. Sagar Nitin Parikh, (ITA No. 6399/Mum/2011) dated 03.06.2015. (iii) The Board vide its Circular Nos. 471 dated 15.10.1986 and 672 dated 16.12.1993 has explained that to qualify for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, in respect of the investment for construction…