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. Minal Nayan Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr, CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate with Shri ParinFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

…riteria for eligibility of one residential house. In the context, the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka); CIT vs. Gita Duggal (2013) 357 ITR 153 (Delhi); CIT vs. Gita Duggal (2014) 52 taxmann.com 246 (SC), CIT vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP) and CIT vs. Smt. V. R. Karpagam (2015) 373 ITR 127 (Madras) for construction of the expression ‘a residential house’ ITA No.643/Ahd/19 [Smt. Minal Nayan Shah vs. Pr.C IT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 8 - in the context of Section 54 and Section 54F of t…

Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…the sale consideration for which the liability to the capital gain tax u/s 45 arises, assessee was entitled to deduction thereunder on the entire investment. We further find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gita Duggal reported in (2013) 357 ITR 153 has held that the fact that residential house consists of several independent units cannot be the reason for denying the claim of deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act. 13. As far as the issue of purchasing flats in joint name is concerned, it is the assessee’s contention that the entire consideration towards the purchase of flats was invested by th…

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

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1477/DEL/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) Anil Aneja Vs. ACIT A-1/178, Circle-61(1) Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi New Delhi- PAN : AAGPA2328B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ranjan Chopra, CA Respondent by Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement 06.08.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed against the order dated 10.08.2015 by the assessee passed by CIT(A)-20, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-…

N.Ravi Arumugavelan, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2888/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2888/Chny2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-2016. Shri. N. Ravi Arumugavelan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/O. P. Krishnan & Associates, Cas, International Taxation Ward 2(1) New No.20, 2Nd Street, Bsnl Building, Raghavan Colony, Ashok Nagar, Greams Road, Chennai 600 083. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Akzpr 9452J]

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar Dora, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2888/CHNY2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2015-2016. Shri. N. Ravi Arumugavelan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/o. P. Krishnan & Associates, CAs, International Taxation Ward 2(1) New No.20, 2nd Street, BSNL Building, Raghavan Colony, Ashok Nagar, Greams Road, Chennai 600 083. Chennai 600 006. [PAN AKZPR 9452J] (अपीलाथ"/Appella…

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. Smt. Manisha Juneja Sawhney, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3444/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…e entire existing structure it comprises residential house. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Ved Prakash Rakhra [2013] 256 CTR 285 as well as the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gita Duggal [2013] 357 ITR 153 and CIT vs. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 (KAR, H.C.). the Ld. AR has given an alternative contention that since the share of the assessee and the builder in the newly constructed residential property was fixed and certain terms were defined by the collaboration agreement alternatively it can be said that the assessee was permanently disposse…

Amit Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 28, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4050/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah and Ms. Niyanta Mehta-Ld. ArsFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…nt proceedings vide question No. 26 of notice dated 23/12/2015 and after considering the assessee’s reply, the assessee’s claim was accepted u/s 54. 2.4 In reply, the attention was also drawn to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in Gita Duggal 257 CTR 208 to submit that a residential house should be understood in the sense that the building should be a residential one and that the words ‘a’ would not mean to indicate a singular number. It was further submitted that the words ‘a residential house’ were replaced with ‘one residential house’ only with effect from 01/04/2015 and accordingly, the amend…

Ravi Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2457/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 54Section 54F

…used by the assessee as a single residential house, both flats would be considered for claiming exemption notwithstanding the fact that they are converted into one 4 residential unit or not. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in case of CIT vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153(Del) (2013) which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Gita Duggal (2015) 228 Taxman 62 (SC) that there is no specific requirement in the law that house should be constructed in a particular manner and thus, if several units were used by assessee as single house, requirements laid down in section 54F will be satisfied. 1.6.4 Some of…

Sri Suresh.C, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1625/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…aw arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee also pointed out that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has been followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gita Duggal – [357 ITR 153] (Del) and the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) [352 ITR 418] (AP). 6. Before the Tribunal, the assessee apart from relying on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of K.G.Rukminiamma (supra) also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. V.R Ka…

M/S Pramod Sahai Bhatnagar HUF, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 517/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54ESection 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jes’k lh0 ’kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 517/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke M/s Pramod Sahai Bhatnagar, HUF The ACIT, 2C-703, Akme Harmony, Sarjapur, Vs. Circle-6, Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Jaipur. Bangalore-560103. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAKHP 3841 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri P.C. Sharma (Adv.) jk…

Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2692/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri H.R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryawamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.1, Aabhran, I Main Road, Ward 5(2)(3), N R Colony, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 019. PAN: AHNPP 4864F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.R. Suresh, CA Respondent by : Shri Vikas Suryawamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2019 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President This appeal by the assessee is against the ord…

Smt.Manju Mahendra Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Section 45Section 54

…operties and the builders made effected modifications in the flat and made it one unit by opening the door in between two apartments in that situation a particular decision was taken. 2.8. I further note that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Gita Duggal (357 ITR 153)(Del.) considering the decision in CIT vs B. Ananda Basappa (2009) 309 ITR 329 held as under:- “The revenue has filed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 07.06.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 3613/Del./2010 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee which is the respond…

ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Shashanka Ghosh, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

Section 54

…operties and the builders made effected modifications in the flat and made it one unit by opening the door in between two apartments in that situation a particular decision was taken. 2.8. We further note that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Gita Duggal (357 ITR 153)(Del.) considering the decision in CIT vs B. Ananda Basappa (2009) 309 ITR 329 held as under:- “The revenue has filed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 07.06.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 3613/Del./2010 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee which is the respond…

Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 289/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…the case of Income Tax Officer vs Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri (2007) 107 ITD 321 (SB). The ld. counsel relied upon the decision from Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CIT vs Syed Ali Adil (352 ITR 418)(AP), Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Gita Duggal (357 ITR 153(Del.), Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 (Karn.). On the other hand, the Ld. DR, strongly defended the impugned order by placing reliance upon the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri ((supra)) and CIT vs Raman Kumar Suri 255 CTR 107 (Bom.). It w…

ITO WD 22(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kanchan Kamlesh Bhatija, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3662/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Ravish Soodincome Tax Officer Wd-22(2)(1) Ms. Kanchan Kamlesh Bhatija Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 75/M, Flat No. 202, Piramal Chambers, Darya Darsh Bldg.,2Nd Floor, Vs. Lalbaug Parel, V.P Rd., Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 054

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

…reliance was placed by the CIT(A) on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT & Anr. Vs. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma (2011) 196 Taxmann.com 87 (Kar) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Geeta Duggal (2015) 30 Taxmann.com 230 (Del), in context on the issue under consideration. It was observed by the CIT(A) that the view of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Geeta Duggal (supra), that the fact that residential house consisted of several independent units cannot be permitted to act as an impediment for allowance of deduction under Sec. 54/54F of the Act, had…

Mrs Kamala Ajmera, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 347/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…makes it explicitly clear that the exemption is allowable only if the assessee has acquired one residential property only. In so far as reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gita Duggal, reported in (2013) 257 CTR 208, he held that the said decision has not been accepted by the Department and the SLP was filed. He also noted that by the Finance Act, 2014 amendment has been brought whereby it has been made clear that exemption shall be available if the assessee acquired one residential property only. This makes it clear that the Legislature intention was to all…

Smt. Sukiana Parvez Ali Khan, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(3), Mohali

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1366/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Mohit DhimanFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh
Section 24Section 250(6)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’SMD’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sukiana Parvez Ali Khan Vs. The ITO # 2030, Sector-71 Ward 6(3), Mohali Mohali PAN No. AWKPK1411B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Mohit Dhiman Revenue By : Shri. Manjit Singh Date of hearing : 23/05/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 12/06/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Chandigarh dt. 02/06/2017. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has…

ACIT, Circle-36, Kolkata vs. Smt. Reshmi P Loyalka, Kolkata

In the result, both the Cross Objection of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1763/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1763 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Goulen Hanshing, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

…33,45,47,636/- for the year under appeal. 7.4. We find that the assessee had placed reliance on the following decisions before the ld AO itself :- a) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Gita Duggal in ITA No. 1237/2011 dated 21.2.2013 reported in 357 ITR 153 (Del) b) Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs Syed Ali Adil in ITA No. 410 of 2012 dated 20.12.2012 reported in 352 ITR 418 (AP) c) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt K.G.Rukminiamma reported in 331 ITR 211 (Kar) d) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs D Ananda Basappa reported in 309 ITR 329 (…

Aftab A L Furniturewala, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5178/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shrin.K. Pradhanshri Aftab A L Furniturewala Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1) 601, Charisman Apartments Piramal Chambers 48, Gurunanak Road Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai 23Rd Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai 400050 Pan –Aabpf9617P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase
Section 251(2)Section 54

…submitted, the expression ‘a residential house’ used in section 54 of the Act, as it existed during the relevant period does not mean one residential house. In support of such proposition he relied upon the following decisions: - i) CIT vs. Gita Duggal (2013) 357 ITR 153 (Del.) ii) CIT vs. DevedasNaik (2014) 366 ITR 12(Bom.) iii) CIT vs. D. Ananda Basappa (2009) 309 ITR 329 (Kar.) iv) CIT vs. K.G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Kar.) As regards the issue relating to claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act in respect of garages, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the condition impos…

Shri.T.A.V.Gupta, Turuvekere vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Tiptur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazshri. T.A.V. Gupta, Birla Corner, B.T. Road, Turuvekere – 572227, Pan: Albpg6202G. . Appellant

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 54F

…law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. The assessee also pointed out that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has been followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gita Duggal – 357 ITR 153 (Del) and the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418(AP). ITA No.209/B/18 7 6. The CIT(A) however relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Late Khhbchand M Makhija in ITA No. 496/Bang/2007 judgment dated 18/12/2013 and held that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court…

Smt. Nethravathi, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2630/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazsmt. Nethravathi, No.2, 8Th Cross, 1St Main, Sampangiram Nagar, Bengaluru. . Appellant Pan – Aafpn6032J. Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Warad – 2(3)(3), Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri P Dinesh, Advocate Respondent By : Shri B.R Ramesh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-04-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : -04-2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.R Ramesh, JCIT
Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(3)

…law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 6. The assessee also pointed out that the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has been followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gita Duggal – 357 ITR 153 (Del) and the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418(AP). The CIT(A) however did not agree with the submissions made by the assessee and he held that the facts of the Assessee’s case were different from the facts of the cases cited on behalf of the Assessee. According to CIT(A) in all the cases d…