CIT v. Gita Duggal

357 ITR 153High Court2013#1482 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.

77

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 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 54FSection 234BSection 234CSection 46ASection 54Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 45

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)long-term capital assetsection 54ecsection 13(2)indexed cost of acquisitionsection 54circle ratesection 54fdate of transfertransfer of capital assetsection 45fair market value

Judgments citing CIT v. Gita Duggal

Smt.Thulasi Subash, Thrikkakkara vs. The ITO, Kochi

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

ITA 286/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cochin14 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Smt. Thulasi Subash The Income Tax Officer 6/460A, Chellam Ward-1(5), Range 1 Kollamkudimugal Vs. Non Corporate Thrikkakara Kochi Kochi 682021 Pan – Ctaps0080B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Savio George, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…ate properties. It was the submission that the Corporation Tax Receipt, which was shown at pages 31 to 33 of the paper book, the same was shown as two separate portions. It was the submission that the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of Gita Duggal reported in 357 ITR 153 has categorically held that for the purpose of Section 54 of the Act what is mentioned is a residential house and not a residential unit. It was further submitted that there are various decisions which have held that for the purpose of Section 54 of the Act multiple residential houses can also be considered. It was the submission that the issue i…

Dipti Nalin Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 17(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3274/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M Balaganeshdipti Nalin Parikh, Crescent Bay T4 Apt. 3103-3104, Near, Parel Bhoiwada, Opp. Cancer Society, Jeerabai Wadai Road, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aabpp5053F ............ Appellant Vs. Ito-17(1)(4), 115, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sonia Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 54Section 54(1)

…house should be considered as one residential house only even if it has more than one residential unit. In addition to the above, the Hon’ble Tribunal may also consider the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi rendered in the case of CIT V. Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153 (Del), wherein, it has been clearly held that the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units cannot be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of deduction u/s 54/54F of the act. This decision has affirmed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Gita Duggal 228 Taxman 62 (SC). Copy of the decision is enclosed…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Hyderabad vs. Late Shri Ieneni Sripathirao L/R Ieneni Shashikant, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1380/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Late Shri Ieneni Income Tax, Sripathirao Circle – 11(1), L/R Ieneni Shashikant, Hyderabad. H.No.5-2-41/20, Seshadri Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Pan : Beeps2654P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 23/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2011-12 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 16.07.2019, In Case No.0060/2018-19/Cit(A)-5 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…d 890/Hyd/2019 and corresponding assessee’s Misc. Applications MA Nos.48-50/Hyd/2021; quotes case law CIT Vs. Vittal Krishna, Conjeevaram Vs. ITO 144 ITD 325 (Hyd), CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil 352 ITR 418 (AP), CIT Vs. Anand Basappa 309 ITR 329, CIT Vs. Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153, Arun K. Thiagarajn Vs. CIT 193 DTR 153, CIT Vs. Gumanmal Jain 394 ITR 666, Tilokchand and Sons Vs. ITO 413 ITR 666 etc to uphold the latter’s claim of section 54F deduction involving other family members. We thus adopt judicial consistency to affirm the CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings under challenge. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Hyderabad vs. Panduranga Rao Vaddepally, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 59/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Bhupathi Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Aoipv 4558A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Panduranga Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Anppp 8702J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54F

…aw: 1. CIT Vs. Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram, ITTA No. 588 of 2013, dated 06/12/2013 2. Vittal Kirshna Conjeevaram Vs. ITO, 144 ITD 325 (ITAT, Hyd.) 3. CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil, 352 ITR 418 (AP – HC) 4. CIT Vs. D. Ananda Basappa, 309 ITR 329 5. CIT Vs. Gita Duggal, 357 ITR 153 6. Arun K. Thiagarajan Vs. CIT, 193 DTR 153) 7. CIT Vs. Gumanmal Jain, 394 ITR 666 8. Tilokchand and Sons Vs. ITO, 413 ITR 189 9. K. Jaipal & Others, ITA NO. 1188/Hyd/2015 and others, dated 19/11/2015. :- 14 -: ITA No. 1826 & 59/Hyd/2019 Bhupathi Ra V and another, Hyd. 4.2 Considering the above judgements cited by the ld. AR of the assessee, the…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Hyderabad vs. Bhupathi Rao Vaddepally, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1826/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Bhupathi Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Aoipv 4558A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Asst. Commissioner Of Panduranga Rao Income-Tax, Circle – 11(1), Vaddepally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan-Anppp 8702J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54F

…aw: 1. CIT Vs. Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram, ITTA No. 588 of 2013, dated 06/12/2013 2. Vittal Kirshna Conjeevaram Vs. ITO, 144 ITD 325 (ITAT, Hyd.) 3. CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil, 352 ITR 418 (AP – HC) 4. CIT Vs. D. Ananda Basappa, 309 ITR 329 5. CIT Vs. Gita Duggal, 357 ITR 153 6. Arun K. Thiagarajan Vs. CIT, 193 DTR 153) 7. CIT Vs. Gumanmal Jain, 394 ITR 666 8. Tilokchand and Sons Vs. ITO, 413 ITR 189 9. K. Jaipal & Others, ITA NO. 1188/Hyd/2015 and others, dated 19/11/2015. :- 14 -: ITA No. 1826 & 59/Hyd/2019 Bhupathi Ra V and another, Hyd. 4.2 Considering the above judgements cited by the ld. AR of the assessee, the…

Robin Singh Chauhan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7074/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Robin Singh Chauhan, Vs Acit, 100/1, Gautam Nagar, Circle-29(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaepc9857F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venkatesh Chaurasia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-10, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2012- 13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Long-Term Capital Gain & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 28Th July, 2012 Declaring The Total Income At Rs2,61,98,009/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Shown An Income Of Rs.2,46,33,865/- Under The Head ‘Long- Term Capital Gain.’ The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54 Of The Act For An Amount Of Rs.2,05,71,400/- On Account Of Investment In Two Properties. The Calculation Of The Cost Of Acquisition Of The New Property As Submitted By The Assessee & Reproduced By The Ao Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 54

…nd & Sons vs. ITO (2019) 105 taxman.com 151 (Mad); ii) CIT vs Khoobchand M Makhija (2014) 43 taxmann.com 143 (Kar); iii) G. Chinnadurai vs. ITO 74 taxmann.com 227 (Madras); iv) CIT VII Vs. Gita Duggal 52 taxmann.com.246 (SC) 2014; v) CIT Vs Gita Duggal [2013] 357 ITR 153 (Delhi); vi) CIT Vs. Khoobchand M Makhija (2014)43 taxmann.com 143 (Kar); vii) CIT Bangalore vs Smt. K.G. Rukiminiamma (2011) 196 taxman 87 (Kar) & viii) Sanjiv Ahuja vs. ITO, ITA 977/Del/2017, dt. 03.03.2021, Delhi ITAT 10. So far as the disallowance of Rs.13,68,340/- being 25% of the total expenses incurred by the assessee is concerned, she su…

S.M. Vinod (Legal Heir of Late Sri. S M Muniyappa), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri C. Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besa Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…s. The Tribunal has reached the conclusion that assessee has purchased only one property and not two Page 7 of 14 properties. Though the Tribunal has made a reference to the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gita Duggal (2013) 30 Taxmann.com 230(Delhi) in which flats located in two different floors were regarded as one property. The Tribunal also referred to decisions of High Court of Karnataka referred to by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and those decisions were only purely supportive, but the real conclusion of the Tribunal on facts is that the assessee purchased only one house p…

Sri Ramaiah Harish, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Gangadhar Shastry, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, D.R
Section 54F

…ITA No.789/Bang/2019 Sri Ramaiah Harish, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sri Ramaiah Harish No.100, Pruthvi Nilaya 4th Cross, R.K. Layout 2nd Stage, Padmanabhanagar Vs. ITO Ward-7(2)(4) Bangalore 560 070 Bangalore PAN NO :AARPH6742D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Gangadhar Shastry, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 09.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2021 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee…

Nina Luthra, Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Noida

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3861/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Nina Luthra, F No 20, Sector-37, Vs. Ito, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Ward-1(2), Pan: Actpl6023F Noida (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 69

…one residential unit against the total investment made by the assessee in two adjoining residential unit. The ld AR submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153, Hon‟ble Madras High Court in Tilokchand and Sons v. ITO (2019) 413 ITR 189 / 308 CTR 364/ 263 Taxman 713/ 177 DTR 165(Mad) (HC), Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in Arun K. Thiagarajan v. CIT(Appeals) (2020) 427 ITR 190 /193 DTR 153/ 272 Taxman 235 (Karn)(HC) and CIT Vs. Rukmaniamma 331 ITR 211. The ld DR submitted that investment in two units is no…

Prem Jain, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 279/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka (Adv) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 263Section 54F

…essee has relied upon the following judgements in support of the claim u/s 54F: • ACIT Vs Leela P Nanda 102 ITD 281(Mumbai Trib) • CIT Vs Sunita Aggarwal 284 ITR 20 (Delhi High Court) • CIT Vs Devdas Naik 366 ITR '12 ( Bomaby High Court) • CIT Vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153 (Delhi High Court) The facts of the above cases are clearly distinguishable from that of the assessee. In case at serial no. 1 above, two contiguous flats were made into one unit. In the assessee’s case, the plots are vacant with a very small portion on one plot having a small room. In case at number 2, there is a clear finding that all the por…

Madhu B Khatri, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s claim of deduction is allowed

ITA 6613/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Confirming The Sale Consideration Determined By Ld. Ao On Adopting The Market Value Of 2 Residential Flats, Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54Section 541

…hat merely because n residential house consist of several independent residential unit, deduction under section 54/54F could not be disallowed - Whether special leave petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes." CIT vs. Gita Duggal 30 Taxmann.com 230 (Del-HC) "On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), as well as the Tribunal held that the words 'a residential house' appearing in section 54/54F cannot be construed to mean a single residential house since under section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, a singular includes plural. ............. Section 54/54F uses the expression 'a resident…

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

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

ITA 5767/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

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

…K. Thiagarajan Vs Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-II [2020] 117 taxmann.com 270 (Karnataka) following the decisions of CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma [2011] 331 ITR 211 (Kar.), Tilokchand and Sons v. ITO [2019] 413 ITR 189 (Mad.) and CIT v. Gita Duggal [2013] 357 ITR 153 (Delhi) and has held that :- “10. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made at the bar, we deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 54(1) of the Act, which read, prior to its amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, as under: 54(1) Subject to the provisio…

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

…K. Thiagarajan Vs Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-II [2020] 117 taxmann.com 270 (Karnataka) following the decisions of CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma [2011] 331 ITR 211 (Kar.), Tilokchand and Sons v. ITO [2019] 413 ITR 189 (Mad.) and CIT v. Gita Duggal [2013] 357 ITR 153 (Delhi) and has held that :- “10. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made at the bar, we deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 54(1) of the Act, which read, prior to its amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, as under: 54(1) Subject to the provisio…

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

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

…K. Thiagarajan Vs Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-II [2020] 117 taxmann.com 270 (Karnataka) following the decisions of CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma [2011] 331 ITR 211 (Kar.), Tilokchand and Sons v. ITO [2019] 413 ITR 189 (Mad.) and CIT v. Gita Duggal [2013] 357 ITR 153 (Delhi) and has held that :- “10. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made at the bar, we deem it appropriate to reproduce Section 54(1) of the Act, which read, prior to its amendment by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, as under: 54(1) Subject to the provisio…

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

…ferent Door Nos. The Tribunal has reached the conclusion that assessee has purchased only one property and not two properties. Though the Tribunal has made a reference to the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gita Duggal (2013) 30 Taxmann.com 230(Delhi) in which flats located in two different floors were regarded as one property. The Tribunal also referred to decisions of High Court of Karnataka referred to by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and those decisions were only purely supportive, but the real conclusion of the Tribunal on facts is that the assessee purchased only one house p…

Sri Omkar Chadha, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 346/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 346/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Omkar Chadha, Vs Income Tax Officer, I-39, Jangpura Extn., Ward-54(3), New Delhi-110014 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc8329G Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2020

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 54F

…rent properties out of the capital gains is being examined. A. Claim U/s 54F for Investment for residential property for Rs.64,28,424/- or B. Claim for Construction of residential house of Rs.24,20,000/- or both. 12. We have examined the case of Gita Duggal 257 CTR 208 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that “the expression “a” residential house should be understood in a sense that building should be of residential nature and “a” should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Also, section 54/54F uses the expression “a residential house" and not “a residential unit”. Section 54/54F requires the assess…

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…

Shri. Navin Jolly vs. The Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA/320/2011HC Karnataka18 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 54FSection 54F(1)

…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.320 OF 2011 BETWEEN: SHRI.NAVIN JOLLY C/O NAVIN ARCHITECT PRIVATE LIMITED UNIT NO.112, G.F.NO.139 OXFORD TOWERS OPP. LEELA PALACE HOTEL AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE – 560 008. ... APPELLANT (By Sri.A.SHANKAR SR.ADV. A/W SRI.M.LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 11(1), R.P.BHAVAN OPP TO RBI, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE 0 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) - - -…

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

…sel for the assessee has submitted that the issue is covered by the various decisions of the Hon'ble Higher Courts. He, in this respect has relied on the following decisions:- 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’ (30…

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

…ption u/s 54F of the Act has been confined with a single unit of the residential flat. Moreover, we also find support of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. D. Ananda Basappa (SLP) 320 ITR 19 (SC), CIT Vs. JeoB. Fernandes (SLP) 322 ITR 8, CIT Vs. Gita Duggal (357 ITR 153), CIT Vs. Devdas Naik 366 ITR 12 (Bom HC) and Tilokchand & Sons Vs. ITO (105 taxmann.com 151 (Mad HC). Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on these issues and allowed the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, we decide these issues in favour of the assessee against the revenue. 6.…