How many judgments cite CIT v. Gita Duggal?

77 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gita Duggal (357 ITR 153), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gita Duggal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54F, Section 234B, Section 234C, Section 46A, Section 54, Section 139(1).

CIT v. Gita Duggal

357 ITR 153High Court2013#1483 most cited

What is CIT v. Gita Duggal authority for?

For capital gains exemption under sections 54 and 54F, the term "a residential house" does not restrict the exemption to a single residential unit and can include multiple contiguous or combined residential units treated as one house.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gita Duggal · Section 54 · Section 54F · Section 45 · multiple residential units · single residential house · capital gains exemption · residential house definition · combined flats · contiguous units

Also reported as

30 Taxmann.com 230257 CTR 208214 Taxmann 51

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 234B Section 234C Section 46A Section 54 Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 45

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)long-term capital asset section 54ec section 13(2)indexed cost of acquisition section 54 circle rate section 54f date of transfer transfer of capital asset section 45 fair market value

Judgments citing CIT v. Gita Duggal

LATE RAJESHAM RAGI,KARIMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 776/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.776/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Late Ragi Rajesham, The Income Tax Officer, Karimnagar. Ward-2, Vs. Pin – 505 001. Telangana. Karimnagar. Pan Aaxpr4513J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri Rv Nageshwar Sharma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri RV Nageshwar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA.No.776/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Late Ragi Rajesham, The Income Tax Officer, KARIMNAGAR. Ward-2, vs. PIN – 505 001. Telangana. KARIMNAGAR. PAN AAXPR4513J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee by : Sri RV Nageshwar Sharma, CA राज" व "ारा/Revenue by : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 10.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.04.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL…

PAYAL BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 41(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1254/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

…f debate which has now been settled by the Page 4 of 9 Smt. Payal Bansal hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of Lata Goel in ITA 127/225 vide its order dated 30.04.2025, referring its own decision in the case of CIT Vs. Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153, which was affirmed by hon’ble Supreme Court in 228 Taxmann.com 62, had held that multiple residential units may be construed as a single residential house for the purposes of exemption u/s 54F of the Act and that the term ‘a residential house’ can be construed as ‘one residential house’. It would be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion…

JYOTI JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ground no. 5 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.4983/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Jyoti Jain, 25/94, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi 110007 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan No: Adipj-0775-G बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(2), New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta & Ms. Vanshika Mehta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 54F

…been combined to make one residential unit. The said judgment, thus, proceeds on a different fact situation." 22. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the coordinate bench of this court in CIT v. Gita Duggal [2013] 30 taxmann.com 230/214 Taxman 51/357 ITR 153 (Delhi)/2013 SCC OnLine Del 752 where this court has held as under: - "11. There could also be another angle. Section 54/54F uses the expression "a residential house". The expression used is not "a residential unit". This is a new concept introduced by the Assessing Officer into the section. Section 54/54F requires the assessee to acquire a "resi…

SAROJ RANI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 44(6), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5472/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 54

…appeal before us. 7. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gita Duggal reported in 228 Taxmann.com 62 which affirmed the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 357 ITR 153. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the facts of the case relied upon by the Revenue in Pawan Arya Vs. CIT 2010 of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court do not apply to the facts of the case in hand in as much as in that case, deduction u/s 54 and 54F was denied by the Hon'ble High Court for the reason that the flats w…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Deepak Kothari, vs. ACIT, Central Circle – 5, 24/19, The Mall Kanpur, New Delhi. Kanpur – 208 011 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AAYPK6101C) ACIT, Central Circle – 5, vs. Deepak Kothari, New Delhi. 24/19, The Mall Kanpur, Kanpur – 208 011 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AAYPK6101C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 05.06.2025…

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. LATA GOEL

ITA/127/2025HC Delhi30 Apr 2025

Bench: The Learned

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 260ASection 54F

…ITA 127/2025 Page 1 of 10 $~101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 30.04.2025 + ITA 127/2025 & CM No.25518/2025 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Adv. Versus LATA GOEL .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral) 1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] impugning an order dated 25.09.2024 [impugned order] passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.3426/Del/2019 in respect of Ass…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. LATA GOEL

ITA-127/2025HC Delhi30 Apr 2025

Bench: The Learned

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 260ASection 54F

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. LATA GOEL

ITA - 127 / 2025HC Delhi30 Apr 2025

Bench: The Learned

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 260ASection 54F

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

ITTA/127/2025HC Telangana12 Feb 2025

Bench: The Learned

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 260ASection 54F

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), SURAT vs. MANISH SUMATILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 382/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Manish Sumatilal Shah, Circle- 2(1)(1), 401, 4Th Floor, South Ridge Road, Vs. Surat. Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adrps 1088 E Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 254(1)Section 54F

…ious decisions of Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunal including the decisions in Smt. B.S. Shanthakumari (2015) 60 taxmann.com 74 (Kar), CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar (2012) 345 ITR 389 (Kar), CIT Vs Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP), CIT Vs Gita Duggal (2013) 357 ITR 153 (Delhi). The assessee again along with his submission, filed application under Rule 46A of the Rules and also furnished copy of registered sale deeds of flats, floor plan drawing showing that all four units are amalgamated together to form one residential unit, photograph of the flats showing that only one residential unit exists on the 4th floor…

HARVIDER SINGH KALRA,UJJAIN vs. THE ITO1(1), UJJAIN

ITA 128/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Harvinder Singh Ito, Kalra, 1(1), बनाम/ Agar Road, Ujjain Ganesh Nagar, Vs. Ujjain (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Ahipk9285C Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 54F

…“single property”. He submitted that in such situations, the courts have accepted claim of exemption; Ld. AR has also filed copies of certain judicial rulings, namely ACIT Vs. Reshmi P. Loyalka (ITAT-Kolkata) ITA No. 1763/Kol/2016, CIT Vs. Gita Duggal (2013) 357 ITR 153 (Delhi HC), Navin Jolly Vs. ITO (2020) 424 ITR 462 (Karnataka HC), CIT Vs. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka HC), by way of a compilation. Lastly, Ld. AR also submitted that there were three owners (including assessee) in the newly purchased two properties; therefore one can safely conclude that one person is owner of one proper…

RAVI AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniravi Agrawal Pr. Cit 101-102, Kanchan Vihar, Indore Vs. Niranjanpur, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aorpa 2161 B Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 263Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ravi Agrawal Pr. CIT 101-102, Kanchan Vihar, Indore Vs. Niranjanpur, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AORPA 2161 B Assessee by None Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 02.05.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revision order dated 17.03.2021 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore for Assessment Year 201…

NANDLAL DULICHAND GUPTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 927/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)Section 44A

…ell purchased the twin residential units in the year 2014 (supra) itself whereas the clinching amendment to section 54F(1) is applicable with prospective effect from 1.4.2015 only. Case law CIT vs. Smt. K.G. Rukmaniamma 331 ITR 291 (Kar.), CIT vs. Geeta Dugal 357 ITR 153 (Delhi), CIT vs. V.R. Karbagam 373 ITR 122 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Gumanmal Jain 394 ITR 666 (Mad.) have already rejected the Revenue’s identical stand thereby holding that “a residential house” for the purpose of section 54F(1) deduction can indeed cover multiple units in same or different towers or residential blocks; as the case may be. This is ind…

PALAKUNNATHU KANNAMPATHU SUSHIL KUMAR,NADAKKAVU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 247/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Richard Mathew, CAFor Respondent: Shri M Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 45Section 54F

…- • Learned Principal commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode erroneously conceived the fact and wrongly passed an assessment order for the A.Y 2016-17. • Deduction for two independent flats in two different floors was allowed in the case of CIT v. Gita Duggal (357 ITR 153 ( 2013) (Delhi HC). As per the observation Page 2 of 5 of the High Court Section 54F uses the expression "a residential house". The expression used is not "a residential unit". Section 54F requires the assessee to acquire a "residential house" and so long as the assessee acquires a building, which may be constructed, for the sake of convenience,…

HANUMANT CHANGDEO NAKHATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 373/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashaliassessment Year 2015-16 The Dcit, Circle-8, Shri Hanumant Changdeo Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Nakhat, Bapu Niwas, Ram Vs Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Nagar, Rahatani, Nr. Akurdi Rly Station, Pune – 411 017. Pradhikaran, Pune Pan Acypn6082D Pin 411 044. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…ell purchased the twin residential units in the year 2014 (supra) itself whereas the clinching amendment to section 54F(1) is applicable with prospective effect from 1.4.2015 only. Case law CIT vs. Smt. K.G. Rukmaniamma 331 ITR 291 (Kar.), CIT vs. Geeta Dugal 357 ITR 153 (Delhi), CIT vs. V.R. Karbagam 373 ITR 122 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Gumanmal Jain 394 ITR 666 (Mad.) have already rejected the Revenue’s identical stand thereby holding that 6 ITA.No.373/PUN/2019 Shri Hanumant Changdeo Nakhat, Pune. “a residential house” for the purpose of section 54F(1) deduction can indeed cover multiple units in same or different to…

SONALI KIRAN SHIVARKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT- CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 1881/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1881/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sonali Kiran Shiv Arkar, The Deputy L/H Of Late Kiran Sopanrao Vs Commissioner Of Income Shivarkar, A-204, Ganga Tax, Cirlce-7, Pune. Savera, Shivarkar Road, Wanawadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Aprps 3509 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune, Dated 11.09.2019 For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Law & Without Considering Facts & Submission Made, Claimed U/S 54F Amounting To Rs.24,72,272/- In Respect Of Investment In Second Residential House. The Appellant Prays That Deduction U/S 54F Be Allowed In Respect Of Second Residential House.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Original Return On 18/11/2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,41,550/-. The Assessee Then Filed Revised Return On 27/03/2015 Declaring Total Income Of

Section 45Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1881/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sonali Kiran Shiv Arkar, The Deputy L/h of Late Kiran Sopanrao Vs Commissioner of Income Shivarkar, A-204, Ganga Tax, Cirlce-7, Pune. Savera, Shivarkar Road, Wanawadi, Pune – 411040. PAN: APRPS 3509 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Nikhil Pathak – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 21/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 18/10/20…

ITO WARD - 30(1), NEW DELHI vs. KUSUM GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue Department, stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 914/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Jindal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: ShriAnujGarg, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 250Section 54

…by the court to one house since two new/houses were acquired in different locations. However, the facts are distinguishable in the case of the present assessee. It is relevant to point out that the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Gita Duggal (2013) 257 CTR 208 (Del) has held that residential house consists of several independent units cannot be permitted to act as an impediment to allow the deduction under section 54/54F of the Act. In the case of CIT v. D. AnartdBasappa f20091 309 ITR 329 (Kar) the High Court of Karnataka has held that "a residential house" as mentioned in section 54(1) of the Act, ha…

ARUNKUMAR PURSHOTAMLAL KHANNA,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CIRCLE), PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 181/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.181/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Arunkumar Purshotamlal Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. Khanna, Flat No.3123/3124, Clover Palisades, Nibm Road, Kondhwa, Pune- 411048. Pan : Agipk3043K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

SHRI RAJEEV NATARAJ LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI P NATARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR

Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1st Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. PAN: AHAPN9475D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is fi…

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4