B.B. Sarkar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax on 5 May

132 ITR 661High Court1981#19078 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing B.B. Sarkar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax on 5 May

RANJANA KOTARIA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 477/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Gururaj Acharya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., D.R

Section 54F

…re incurred on making the house habitable should be considered as investment in purchase of the house. The Appellant relies of the following judgements in this regard. a) B.B. Sarkar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax on 5 May, 1981 – Calcutta High Court – (1981) 132 ITR 661 b) C. Aryama Sundaram Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Madras HC c) Mrs. Gulshanbanoo R Mukhi vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax 16th January 2002 Mumbai ITAT d) Mr. Saleem Fazelbhoy vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax on 29 June 2006 Mumbai ITAT 6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [Ld. CIT(A)]has erred in stating that the…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SANJAY NEMICHAND LOHADE,, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 982/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 54F

…nd therefore 4 ITA No.982/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2008-09 it is to be treated as land appurtenant. In support of this contention we have relied upon the following decisions: a. CIT v. Natu Hansraj [1976] 105 ITR 43 (guj.); b. Addl. CIT v. Vidya Prakash Talwar [1981] 132 ITR 661 (Delhi); c. CIT v. Zaibunnisa Beguni [1985] 151 ITR 320 (AP); d. CIT v. Kodandas Chanchlomal [1985] 155 ITR 273 (Guj.); e. M. Abdul Sattar v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 642 (Karp); f. CIT v. Kamala Ranganathan [1990] 186 ITR 536 (Mad.); g. CIT v. Mrs. P. Rajasulochana [1994] 210 ITR 423 (Mad.); h. CIT v. Sint. D. Rani [1996] 218 ITR 724 (All.); and 7. In…

KETHSIAL JUSTIN,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.781/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. Smt. Kethsial Justin, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.1022, 6Th Avenue, Corporate Ward 2(1) Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 040. [Pan Ahjpk 9090N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Al. Eagammai, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ (SMC) "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.781/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. Smt. Kethsial Justin, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.1022, 6th Avenue, Corporate Ward 2(1) Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 040. [PAN AHJPK 9090N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. Al. Eagammai, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर स…

R.UPENDRAN (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1188/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)

…building and even if it was commenced before the sale of the original residential house, benefit of Sec.54 to be given. For this purpose, I place reliance in the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Additional CIT Vs. Vidya Prakash Talwar in [1981] 132 ITR 661 (Del). Further, we make it clear that even the commencement of construction of a residential house before transfer of the property does not disentitle the assessee claim deduction u/s.54 of the Act. For this proposition, we take support the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. J.R.Subramanya Bhat in [1986] 28 Taxman 578(Kar.…