Anand Basapa v. ITO

91 ITD 53Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#13018 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,252 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing Anand Basapa v. ITO

Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax(OSD), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No. 368/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, 254, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur. ……………. Appellant PAN – AAQPN4090H v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, ……………. Respondent (OSD), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri M.G.Moryani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 27/06/2024 Date of Order – 27/06/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 18/10/…

Neelam Garg, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward No. 3, Karnal

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6250/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargneelam Garg, Vs. Ito, Hem Chand Jain, H. No. 2, Ward No. 3, Huda Staff Owarter, No. 1, Karnal Sector-13, Extn, Karnal, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ainpg2119D Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

…come. Eventually the order of the Tribunal, which was decided in favour of the department, was based on interpretation of the provisions of Section 54F after considering the various judgments and in particular its own decision in the case of D Ananda Basappa (91 ITD 53). 5.1 The assessee has furnished all particulars on facts and in law. Nowhere has the AO said that the particulars furnished by the assessee are inaccurate or in correct. He levied penalty only because judicial decisions are against the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the capital gain was suppressed or concealed. The particulars fu…

Sri Omkar Chadha, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 346/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 346/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Omkar Chadha, Vs Income Tax Officer, I-39, Jangpura Extn., Ward-54(3), New Delhi-110014 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc8329G Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2020

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 54F

…parate sale deeds. Deduction is allowable even if the flats are on different floors. On facts, as the two flats purchased by the assessee are adjacent to one another and have a common me point, the deduction cannot be denied. 14. In the case of Anand Basappa 91 ITD 53, the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT at Bangalore observed as to whether 'a residential house' should be treated as 'one residential house' or whether 'more than one residential house' can be considered eligible for deduction under Section 54. The Tribunal observed as under: “Reading the provisions of Section 54-it can be held that there is no bar like S…

Smt.Manju Mahendra Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Section 45Section 54

…er set off the capital gain against one of the houses but held the claim not to be admissible against second house. However, the CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee relying upon decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in D. Anand Basapa Vs. ITO (2004) 91 ITD 53. The said view has been reversed by the Tribunal as follows:- “6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. The facts in the present case are clear. The assessee is claiming exemption in respect of two independent residential houses situated at different locations; one is in Dilshad Colony,…

ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Shashanka Ghosh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

Section 54

…rebut the claim of the assessee/appellant is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (iii) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below in ignoring the ratio of the decision in the case of D. Anand Basapa v/s ITO (2004) 91 ITD 53 (Bang.) wherein the exemption u/s 54 of the Act was granted on the acquisition of two houses out of the proceeds of one residential house is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (iv) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below, impugned orders Annexure A-1 and A-5 are legally sustainable in the eyes of law…

Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 289/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…opal Nagpal v. Dy. CIT [2004] 2 SOT 628 (Pune) (para 1), " Mrs. Gulshanbanoo R. Mukhi v. Jt. CIT [2002] 83 ITD 649 (Mum.) (para 1), " Mahomedally Tajbhoy v. CEPT [1951] 20 ITR 274 (Bom.) (para 5), 8 Amirali Akbarali Engineer " Dr. Anand Basappa v. ITO [2004] 91 ITD 53 (Bang.) (para 6), " CIT v. Natu Hansraj [1976] 105 ITR 43 (Guj.) (para 6), " CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/ 2 Taxman 541 (SC) (para 6), " Keshavji Raoji & Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 1/ 49 Taxman 87 (SC) (para 7) and " B.B. Sarkar v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 150/ 7 Taxman 239 (Cal.) (para 10). 2.3. It is further noted that Hon'ble jurisdicti…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. Shrey Guleri, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6147/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-16(1) Shri Shrey Sharma Guleri बनाम/ Room No.439, Aayakar Prime Channel Software Bhawan, 101, M.K. Road Communications P. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai 400 020 215, Kuber Complex New Link Road Andheri (West) Mumbai 400 053 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaapg4566H याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dilip V. Lakhani ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…rebut the claim of the assessee/appellant is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (iii) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below in ignoring the ratio of the decision in the case of D. Anand Basapa v/s ITO (2004) 91 ITD 53 (Bang.) wherein the exemption u/s 54 of the Act was granted on the acquisition of two houses out of the proceeds of one residential house is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (iv) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below, impugned orders Annexure A-1 and A-5 are legally sustainable in the eyes of law…

Mr. Arunkumar Nathan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1041/BANG/2017[2013 - 14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru
Section 54

…set off the capital gain against one of the houses but held the claim not to be admissible against second house. However, the CIT(A) 11 upheld the claim of the assessee relying upon decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in D.Anand Basappa v. ITO [2004] 91 ITD 53. The said view has been reversed by the Tribunal as follows : "6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us. The facts in the present case are clear. The assessee is claiming exemption in respect of two independent residential houses situated at different locations; one is in Dilshad Colony, De…

Anand Basapa v. ITO (91 ITD 53) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax