B B Sarkar v. CIT (1981)132 ITR 150 (Cal. HC). 4. Mrs Sonia Gulati v. ITO

83 ITD 649Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#16217 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing B B Sarkar v. CIT (1981)132 ITR 150 (Cal. HC). 4. Mrs Sonia Gulati v. ITO

RAJESH MIRAJKER,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-10(1),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 59/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Rajesh Mirajker, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 4/1, Abu Castle, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 925, Poonamallee High Road, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpm 9213 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.M.Karunakaran, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 54

…ts to construction of new house property and thus, the authorities could not have rejected deduction claimed u/s.54 of the Act. This proposition is supported by the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of Gulshanbanoo R. Mukhi v. JCIT reported in 83 ITD 649 and the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Benches in the case of Estate of Late Dr.S.Zakaulla Masood v. ITO in ITA No.775/Bang/2018 dated 14.10.2020, wherein, it has been clearly held that expenses incurred to make the house habitable, amounts to construction of building and entitled for deduction u/s.54 of the Act. In this case, there is no dispu…

SHANTANU KUMAR BOSE ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 33(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3051/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 54ESection 54F

…/2014 (Del. Trib.) 4. B. B. Sarkar Vs. CIT(A) [1981] 7 Taxman 239 (Cal.) 5. Mrs. Rahana Siraj Vs. CIT(A) [2015] 58 taxmann.com 333 (Karnataka) 6. Rustom Homi Vakil Vs. ACIT [2016] 69 Taxmann.com 42 (Trib.- Mumbai) 7. Mrs. Gulshanbanoo R. Mukhi Vs. JCIT [2002] 83 ITD 649 (Trib.- Mum) 8. CBDT Circular 667, dated 18/10/1993 9. CIT(A) Vs. Bharti Mishra [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 50 (Delhi) 10. CIT(A) Vs. Kuldeep Singh [2014] 49 taxmann.com 167 (Delhi) 11. Narasimha Raju Rudra Raju Vs. ACIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 90 (Hyderabad-Trib.) 12. Smt. V. A. Tharabai Vs. DCIT [2012] 19 taxmann.com 276 (Chennai-Trib) 13. ITO Vs. Naray…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ए,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment 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 "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Nandkishor Agrawal राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Satishchandra Rajore…

GIRIJA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 35 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 283/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhsmt. Girija Singh Ito-35(1)-4, 303, Ebony, Tower No.1, C-12, Bandra The Orchard Residency, 146, Mumbai. Vs. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086 Pan: Abgps5477E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag (AR)For Respondent: Mrs. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “G”,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Smt. Girija Singh ITO-35(1)-4, 303, Ebony, Tower No.1, C-12, Bandra The Orchard Residency, 146, Mumbai. Vs. LBS Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086 PAN: ABGPS5477E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ashwin Chhag (AR) Revenue by : Mrs. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak (DR) Date of hearing : 30.03.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 30.03.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income-tax…

RUSTOM HOMI VAKIL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 12(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 4450/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4450/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Rustom Homi Vakil Acit 12(3) बनाम/ Flat No 27, Aaykar Bhawan V. 107,Maison Belvedre New Marine Lines Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aabpv1053F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Mahesh C. MathurFor Respondent: Mr. B S Bist, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54(1)(i)

…CIT (2015) 58 taxmann.com 333(Kar. HC.) 2. Saleem Fazalbhoy v. DCIT (2007) 106 ITD 167(Mum.Trib.) 3. B B Sarkar v. CIT (1981)132 ITR 150 (Cal. HC). 4. Mrs Sonia Gulati v. ITO (2001) 115 taxman 232 (Mum)(Mag.)(Trib.) 5. Mrs. Gulshanbanoo R Mukhi v. JCIT (2002) 83 ITD 649 (Mum. Trib.) 6. Sh. Ashok Kumar Ralhan v. CIT 360 ITR 575 Del. HC 7. G Shiv Ram Krishna v. DCIT in ITA no. 755/Hyd/2013 dated 20-12- 2013 9 Ld. DR relied upon the orders of CIT(A) and drew our attention to the details of expenditure of Rs.14.26 lacs incurred by the assessee to contend that these expenses are merely renovation expenses which canno…

SMT. SHASHI GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6109/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri V.K. Jain & Nem Singh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6109/Del./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) Smt. Shashi Gupta, vs. ITO, Ward 2 (3), B – 195, Ramprastha, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. (PAN : AIVPG8799D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri V.K. Jain & Nem Singh, Advocates REVENUE BY : Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 03.11.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2015 O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the order…

B B Sarkar v. CIT (1981)132 ITR 150 (Cal. HC). 4. Mrs Sonia Gulati v. ITO (83 ITD 649) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax