How many judgments cite CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa?

97 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa (309 ITR 329), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54F, Section 234B, Section 54, Section 143(3), Section 234A, Section 234C.

CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa

309 ITR 329High Court2009#1172 most cited

What is CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa authority for?

For exemption under Section 54, the expression 'a residential house' allows for investment in multiple residential units that form one functional unit, as 'a' does not imply a singular number. The amendment to Section 54, effective from April 1, 2015, is prospective.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa · 309 ITR 329 · Section 54 exemption · investment in more than one residential house · meaning of "a residential house" · Section 13(2) General Clauses Act · clubbing adjacent apartments · Section 54 amendment prospective

Also reported as

180 Taxmann 443 Taxmann.com 143

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 234B Section 54 Section 143(3)Section 234A Section 234C Section 46A Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 13(2)long-term capital asset joint development agreement section 54f jda section 54 date of transfer indexed cost of acquisition section 45 fair market value long term capital gain

Judgments citing CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Valmik Thapar, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6726/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

…ligible for deduction u/s 54 of the income tax act. He submitted that the issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Honorable Karnataka High court Commissioner of Income-tax v. D. Ananda Basappa* [2009] 180 Taxman 4 (Karnataka)/[2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar) [2009] 180 Taxman 4 (Karnataka) and G.Chinnadurai v. Income-tax Officer, Income-tax Department Non-Corporate Ward 13(2), Chenn 74 taxmann.com 227 (Madras). He submitted that facts of the case before us are identical. He therefore submitted that reason which is not in consonance of the decision it cannot be a reason for reopening of the asse…

Shri Valmik Thapar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 6346/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

Sanjiv Ahuja, Delhi vs. ITO (International Taxation), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 977/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja,Sr. DR

Section 13(2)Section 54

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-1”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year 2012-13 Sanjiv Ahuja Vs. ITO (International 69, Taxation) Veer Nagar, Jain Colony Ward-1(1)(1) Delhi – 110 007 Delhi PAN ANDPA8054G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Akshat Jain, CA Department by : Shri Gaurav Dudeja,Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/02/2021 Date of 03/03/2021 pronouncement O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17/11/2016 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) 42 New Delhi relating to assessment yea…

Halesh K. C, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy &For Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 54F

…he AO rejected the claim on the basis that the units on the said floors were independent & self-contained and not "a residential house" and granted exemption for only one unit. The CIT(A) and Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim by relying on B.Ananda Basappa 309 ITR 329 (Kar) and K.G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 (Kar). On appeal by the ITA No. 2692/Bang/2018 department, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Hon'ble Court observed that as held in B.Ananda Bassappa (SLP dismissed) & K G Rukminiamma, the Revenue's contention that the phrase "a" residential house would mean "one" Halesh K.C., Bangalore…

Nilufer Sayed, Mumbai vs. ITO - 21(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3474/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3474/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nilufer Sayed Income Tax Officer-25(3)(5) बना A-601, Leela Sagar Mumbai. म/ Yari Road, Versova Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 061. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cgtps-8161-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 25/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. DR

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

…es in India. 4.2 Interpreting the provisions of Section 54, Hon’ble Madras High Court in recent decision titled as Tilokchand & Sons V/s ITO [105 Taxmann.Com 151 14/03/2019], applying the decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT V/s D. Ananda Basappa [309 ITR 329] & CIT V/s Khoobchand M. Makhija [43 Taxmann.com 143 18/12/2013] held that if the word 'a' as employed under Section 54 prior to its amendment and substitution by the words 'one' with effect from 01/04/2015 could not include plural units of residential houses then there was no need to amend the said provisions by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 which th…

Ketan N. Shah (HUF), Vapi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Vapi

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

ITA 321/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.321/Srt/2018,िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Virtual Court) Ketan N. Shah (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.275, Usha Hospital & Life Ward -5, Vapi. Science Charitable Trust, Near Cine Park, Chanod, Vapi – 396195. [Pan: Aahhk 4703 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hardikvora– Ar िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 20.10.2020 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 20.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judical Memebr: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 [“Cit(A)” ], Valsad, State Of Gujarat,Dated 27.03.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14.This Appeal Was Initially Adjudicated Vide Order Dated 31.07.2019. However, The Order Was Recalled Vide Order Dated 02.01.2020 In Ma No.59/Srt/2019, Thus, In The Aforesaid Background, The Appeal Was Heard Afresh.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARJUN LAL SAINI, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.321/Srt/2018,िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Virtual Court) Ketan N. Shah (HUF), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.275, Usha Hospital and Life Ward -5, Vapi. Science Charitable Trust, Near Cine Park, Chanod, Vapi – 396195. [PAN: AAHHK 4703 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri HardikVora– AR िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date…

Arun K Thiagarajan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

ITA/25/2011HC Karnataka18 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 54

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA I.T.A. NO.25 OF 2011 BETWEEN: ARUN K THIAGARAJAN NO.37, KANAKAPURA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE – 560 004. ... APPELLANT (By Sri.A.SHANKAR SR.ADV. ALONG WITH SRI.M.LAVA AND SRI.GURUMURTHY FOR SRI.S.SUKUMAR, ADV.) AND: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-ii BANGALORE NO.59, HMT BHAVAN 6TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE – 560 032. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T…

Krishna Reddy Praveen Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2173/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC – C” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member ITA No.2172/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 Late Smt.Prema Kumari The Income Tax Officer L/H Sri Praveen Kumar Vs. Ward 7(2) 278, Bellandur Main Road Bengaluru. Bengaluru East Bangalore – 560 037. PAN : AXZPP9579M. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.2173/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 Sri Krishna Reddy Praveen The Income Tax Officer Kumar Vs. Ward 7(2) 278, Bellandur Main Road Bengaluru. Bengaluru East Bangalore – 560 037. PAN : AXZPP9579M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ramakrishna Kamat, CA…

Late Smt. Prema Kumari Represented by Son & L/H Praveen Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2172/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 54Section 54F

Smt. Asha Akhilesh Shukla, Kalyan vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Solapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1576/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri J.G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, DCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

…to the amendment even on purchase of more than one residential house, assessee was eligible to claim deduction. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and another Vs. D. Ananda Basappa reported in (2009) 309 ITR 329 and the decision of Pune Tribunal in the cases of ITO Vs. Shri Narshivha Amrutrao Dhere and ITO Vs. Shri Chandrasen Amrutrao Dhere in ITA Nos.1944 and 1945/PN/2013 order dated 18.03.2015. He also placed on record the copy of the aforesaid decisions. He therefore submitted that in view of the aforesaid decisions, the claim of the assessee be a…

Mohammadanif Sulatanali Pradhan, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1797/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1797/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mohammadanif Sultanali The Dcit बनाम/ Pradhan Circle-6(1) Vs. 1-5, Classic Sunny Complex, Ahmedabad-380 006 Shah E Alam, Tollnaka Ahmedabad-380 028 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abcpp 1862 G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vidhut Trivedi, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vidhut Trivedi, Sr.DR

Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1797/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mohammadanif Sultanali The DCIT बनाम/ Pradhan Circle-6(1) Vs. 1-5, Classic Sunny Complex, Ahmedabad-380 006 Shah e Alam, Tollnaka Ahmedabad-380 028 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABCPP 1862 G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Hardik Vora, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Vidhut Trivedi, Sr…

ITO Non Corp Ward 14 (4), Chennai vs. Smt. B Vathsala, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1112/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1112/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. B. Vathsala, Non-Corporate Ward-14(4), Vs. No.34/30, Umapathy Street, Chennai. West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Actpb 9534H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao Vana, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai Dated 15.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground In This Appeal Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow The Assessee’S Claim Of Deduction Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…etter and spirit and, therefore was entitled to the deduction under Section 54 of the Act for the entire investment in the properties and securities. Therefore, in our opinion, Judgment rendered by the Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. D. Ananda Basappa ((2009) 309 ITR 329 (Karn)) & 9 I.T.A. No.1112/Chny/18 Khoobchand M.Makhija (supra) cited at bar by the learned counsel for the Assessee apply on all fours to the facts of the present case. 22. The decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue, in which the Division Bench of the said Court finding a distinction with D…

Shri Pardeep Kumar Jain, Zirakpur vs. ITO, W-2(3), Chandigarh

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

ITA 190/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 190/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, The Ito, Ward 2(3), बनाम Chandigarh Flat No.222, Orbit Apartments, 6Th Floor, Zirakpur "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Advpj6719P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, CIT DR

Section 271Section 54

…ITA No. 190-Chd/2019 Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, Zirakpur 7 1. CIT(A) vs Gita Duggal (357 ITR 153) [2013] Delhi High Court] 2. CIT vs Syed Ali Adil ()352 ITR 418) (AP High Court) 3. CIT vs KG Rukminiamma (321 ITR 211) (Kar. High Court) 4. CIT vs Ananda Basappa (309 ITR 329) (Kar. High Court) 5. CIT vs RL Sood (245 ITR 727) (2000) (Del. High Court) 10. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that even in the case of ‘CIT vs Ananda Basappa’ (309 ITR 329), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court) has held that in the word Expression "a residential house", ‘a’ should not be understood to indicate a singular number. 11. We f…

Hemant Ishwarlal Desai, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 180/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am Hemant Ishwarlal Desai Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-3(1) 305-306, Mahima Heights, Nr. Shardayatan Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat. School, Chandani Chowk, Surat-395007. Pan/Gir No.Abkpd0745Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah Revenue By Ms. Smitha V. Nair (Sr. Dr)

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…ingular “a residential house” also permits use of plural by virtue of Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act. This is the view which is taken by this court in the aforesaid Anand Basappa's case in I.T.A.No. 113/2004, disposed of on September 20, 2008([2009] 309 ITR 329 (Karn)]. ” 15. That was the case where the assessee gave his property for joint development agreement for putting up flats. Under the terms of the agreement, out of eight flats to be put up, four flats had to be given to the assessee, representing 48%, the consideration for the said four flats was consideration for selling 52% of the site. It was…

Shri Mahendra Hastimal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1846/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Mahendra Hastimal Mehta Vs. Ito – 20(2)(2), Mumbai 604, Shantikamla Chsl Room No.212, Piramal Chamber, 2Nd Floor Bba Road, Fawalwadi Chinchpokli Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No.Aabpm2932J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…ingular "a residential house" also permits use of plural by virtue of Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act. This is the view which is taken by this court in the aforesaid Anand Basappa's case in I.T.A.No. 113/2004, disposed of on September 20, 2008([2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kam)]. " 15. That was the case where the assessee gave his property for joint development agreement for putting up flats. Under the terms of the agreement, out of eight flats to be put up, four flats had to be given to the assessee, representing 48%, the consideration for the said four flats was consideration for selling 52% of the site. It was…

Smt. A.P. Lakshmi Gowri, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 957/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 234ASection 45Section 53ASection 54F

…n this regard, the Appellants wish to rely on the following judicial precedents:  The Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anand Basappa reported in 331 ITR 211 (Kar) and 309 ITR 329 (Kar) respectively. The above interpretation with respect to the provisions of sec. 54 has been clearly drawn by the Hon'ble Karnataka 16 ITA No. 956 & 957(Bang)2016 High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (supra). The meaning given to the expression "a residential house" will apply pari passu to Sec. 54F since the expression…

Sri. A.R. Prasad, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 956/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT DR

Section 2Section 234ASection 45Section 53ASection 54F

Anil Aneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1477/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 2Section 54

…nstrued as one house and deduction u/s 54 cannot be denied. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments: 4 — CIT Vs Gita Duggal [2013] 30 taxmann.com 230 (Delhi) — CIT Vs Gita Duggal [2014] 52 taxmann.com 246 (SC) - SLP Dismissed — CIT vs D Ananda Basappa 309 ITR 329 (Kar.) — CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma, 331 ITR 221 (Kar) — CIT vs Gumanmal Jain [2017] 80 taxmann.com 21 (Mad) — Circular No. 1/2015 dated 21-01-2015 issued by Hon’ble CBDT Moreover, the assessee had deposited Rs. 75 lakhs in Capital Gain Account Scheme on or before 31st March 2011. In view of the above, the Ld. AR prayed that the addition made of Rs.…

Miss Chaya Murthy D/O Late V K Murthy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2824/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2015-16 Ms. Chaya Murthy, D/O. Late V.K. Murthy, The Deputy No. 1/6, 10Th A Cross, Gh Layout, Commissioner Of Lic Colony, Jayanagar 3Rd Block Vs. Income Tax, East, Circle 5 (2) (1), Bangalore – 560 004. Bangalore. Pan: Ahdrc4706F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT (DR)

Section 154Section 54

…one single residential house and not two residential properties. Hence, for the purpose of the above objection raised, the claim of the appellant that the two flats are one residential house should be considered. She relied on CIT vs. D. Anand Basappa [2009] 309 ITR 329-High court (HC) of Karnataka. Further the Assessing Officer has raised another objection that she had claimed the share of her father also which is not allowed as per the provisions of the law for which the appellant submitted that she and appellant's father for this particular case should be treated on par and as one person/assessee since she is…

Sapna Mukesh Thapar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 7062/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, Advocate-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Chaudhury Arun Kumar Singh-Ld.DR

Section 54

…es in India. 2.2 Interpreting the provisions of Section 54, Hon’ble Madras High Court in recent decision titled as Tilokchand & Sons V/s ITO [105 Taxmann.Com 151 14/03/2019], applying the decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT V/s D. Ananda Basappa [309 ITR 329] & CIT V/s Khoobchand M. Makhija [43 Taxmann.com 143 18/12/2013] held that if the word 'a' as employed under Section 54 prior to its amendment and substitution by the words 'one' with effect from 01/04/2015 could not include plural units of residential houses then there was no need to amend the said provisions by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 which th…