Ashok G. Chauhan v. Asstt. CIT

176 ITD 717Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2019#12328 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 250 Section 54B Section 54C Section 54D

Issues it is cited on

section 54f(1)long-term capital asset section 54f date of transfer section 54 section 32 long term capital gains section 115j long term capital gain section 234b section 115 assistant commissioner

Judgments citing Ashok G. Chauhan v. Asstt. CIT

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

ITA 341/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

…r the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Dr: Smt. P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan (supra). 19. We also note that on the identical facts, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai, in the case of Ashok G. Chauhan v. Asstt. CIT [2019] 105 taxmann. com 204/176 ITD 717 held that where Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act, on ground that at time of sale of capital asset, assessee was owner of more than one residential house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated a…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2835/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisandwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR

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

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/…

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3528/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 250Section 54F

PUSHPA KAUL BHOLE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD -32(2)(1), MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal file by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1006/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Pushpa Kaul Bhole, ITO-Ward 32(2)(1), C/103, Shree Sai Tower, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Sodawala Lane, Borivali Bandra(East), (West), Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No. AJEPB4678E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sumit Mantri, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Ujjawal Chavhan, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 07/11/2022 Date of Pronouncement 20/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No. 1006/Mum/2022 for A.Y. 2012-13 arises out of the…

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4147/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR CIT

Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 40Section 54

…term capital asset owns a residential house even jointly with another person, his claim for deduction of capital gain arising from sale of asset has to be rejected. 25. We further find that the coordinate bench of Tribunal in Ashok G. Chauhan vs ACIT: [2019] 176 ITD 717 (Mum.), while granting relief to the taxpayer under section 54F of the Act, observed as under: "8.3 Now the only question remains as to whether assessee can be said to be the owner of residential house flat at Goa. The legislature has used the word "a" before the words "residential house". In our opinion, it must mean a complete residential hous…

RAMESH CHANDER BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

ITA 161/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh Dahiya, Sr. D.R

Section 54ESection 54F

…T 251 [Ahd.-Trib.] 03. Elegant Infraworld P. Ltd., vs., ITO [ITA.No.4334/Del./2018] [Del.-ITAT]. 04. CIT vs., A. Suresh Rao [2014] 41 taxmann.com 475 [Karnataka]. 05. Amit Gupta vs., ACIT [2015] 43 ITR (T) 427 [Del.-ITAT] 06. Ashok G. Chauhan vs., ACIT [2019] 176 ITD 717 [Mum.-ITAT] 07. DCIT vs., Sh. Dawood Abdulhussain [ITA.No.3788/Mum/2016] [Mum.ITAT] 22 ITA.No.161/Del./2020 Smt. Savita Bhasin L.R. of (wife) Shri Ramesh Chander Bhasin, New Delhi. 08. Dr. Smt. P.K. Vasanthi Rangrajan vs. CIT [2012] 252 CTR 336 [Mad.] 5.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also filed written synopsis on record. 6. On the other…

HEMANT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4566/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Hemant Shah Acit-20(1), Mumbai 10, Oomed Sadan 58, Sion, Mumbai 400 022 Vs Pan : Aadps2405E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI Before Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) Hemant Shah ACIT-20(1), Mumbai 10, Oomed Sadan 58, Sion, Mumbai 400 022 Vs PAN : AADPS2405E APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Paresh Vakharia Respondent by Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Sr DR & R. Bhoopati Sr DR Date of hearing 13.12.2019 Date of pronouncement 25.02.2020 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM : 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income –tax- 32 [‘ld.CIT(A)’], Mumbai for assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grou…