How many judgments cite CIT v. Devdas Naik?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Devdas Naik (366 ITR 12), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Devdas Naik come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54F, Section 54, Section 143(3), Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 254(1).

CIT v. Devdas Naik

366 ITR 12High Court2014#4760 most cited

What is CIT v. Devdas Naik authority for?

Deduction under Section 54 or 54F for capital gains can be allowed even if multiple residential units are acquired, provided they are used as a single residential unit or can be combined into one for the purpose of residence.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Devdas Naik · section 54F · section 54 · capital gains deduction · multiple residential units · single residential unit · Section 143(3) · Section 2(47) · Section 254(1)

Also reported as

49 Taxmann.com 30

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 54 Section 143(3)Section 234A Section 234B Section 254(1)Section 2(47)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 54f section 54 long term capital gain section 25 transfer section 143(2)section 143 total income document section 14

Judgments citing CIT v. Devdas Naik

Abhijit Ashok Bhalerao, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 146/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 54

…in ITA No. 1134/2008 decided on 04-07- 2014 by Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court; 6 ITA Nos. 146, 147 & 148/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Raman Kumar Suri, 29 taxmann.com 231 (Bombay); iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Devdas Naik, 366 ITR 12 (Bombay); iv. ITO Vs. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri, 107 ITD 327 (Mumbai)(SB). 5.2 In respect of ground No. 2 raised in appeal, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.4,00,000/- in respect of compensation paid to tenant for vacating the premises. The ld. AR submitted that such expenditure is allowable. The ld. AR filed affi…

Ashok Dattatraya Bhalerao, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 148/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 54

Ram Mohan Rai, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 234BSection 54

…g Officer estimated the sale consideration of the garages and assessed the same as long term capital gain. While deciding the correctness of said order, the Tribunal took note of the other decisions and pointed out that in the case of CIT v. Devdas Naik[2014] 366 ITR 12/227 Taxman 157 (Mag.)/49 taxmann.com 30 (Bom.), wherein it was held that exemption under Section 54F will be applicable only when house purchased is a single unit and in the said case (Devdas Naik), the assessee purchased two residential flats under two different door numbers, from two different owners and combined it to one unit having common kit…

Madhu C. Ganwani, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered

ITA 8891/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kr. Rai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…l evidence he want to adduce the additional evidence in respect of his claim in connection with the two units which has been converted into the one unit 5 A.Y.2006-07 this is exemption u/s.54 of the Act under the different law settled in CIT Vs. Devdas Naik 366 ITR 12 Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Joseph J. Mudaliar Vs. ACIT 65 SOT 87 Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and DCIT Vs. Jai Trikanand Rao 149 ITD 112 Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and CIT Vs. Raman Kumar Suri 212 Taxman 411 Hon’ble Bombay High Court. However, on the other hand the learned departmental representative has stro…

Dinanath Badrinath Chhabra, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7111/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7111/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Uday B Jakke

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…horities that the assessee has violated the second condition prescribed u/s 54F of the Act by purchasing two residential units, the Ld A.R, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Devdas Naik (2014)(366 ITR 12), submitted that the adjacent flats have been joined together and used by the assessee as a single unit and hence there is no violation of the conditions as prescribed by the tax authorities. We have noticed that the assessing officer has already submitted a remand report by obtaining details from the society office, where in it was certified that…