How many judgments cite CIT v. Gumanmal Jain?

46 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gumanmal Jain (394 ITR 666), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gumanmal Jain 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. Gumanmal Jain

394 ITR 666High Court2017#2575 most cited

What is CIT v. Gumanmal Jain authority for?

Multiple floors or houses can qualify as 'a residential house' for capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F if they are constructed or capable of being used as a single unit. This applies to assessment years where the unamended law used the term 'a residential house'.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gumanmal Jain · Section 54 · Section 54F · a residential house · capital gains exemption · multiple units as one house · single residential unit · unamended law

Also reported as

80 Taxmann.com 212017 SCC OnLine MAD 13653

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 234B Section 234C Section 46A Section 54 Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

joint development agreement jda section 54f date of transfer section 54 child long term capital gain limited scrutiny transfer appeal before the tribunal person total income

Judgments citing CIT v. Gumanmal Jain

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Payal Bansal, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No.40, Road No.6, Ward-41(5), Room No.1911, East Punajbi Bagh, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi-110026 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No.AJAPB4507G Assessee by Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]: The above captioned app…

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

…or houses are so constructed as to be used as one singular unit or capable of being used as such, they may fall within the definition of a residential house." 24. The Madras High Court also held a similar view in CIT v. Gumanmal Jain [2017] 80 taxmann.com 21/394 ITR 666 (Madras)/2017 SCC OnLine Mad 13653. 25. The aforesaid decisions were rendered in the context of construing whether the new asset purchased is 'a residential house' - an expression used in Section 54 and 54F of the Act. However, the said decisions would be equally applicable for construing the term 'one residential house' as used in clause (i) of…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5472/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2016-17] Saroj Rani Vs. The I.T.O 44, Sports Villa, Ward – 44(6) Jay Pee Greens Delhi Uttar Pradesh PAN – AAOPR 2107 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Department By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 08.12.2023 for A.Y 2016…

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

SANJEEV BEHL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT TAX WARD, 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5345/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar G Subramanyam, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 250Section 56Section 80

…so the ITAT, Mumbai has relied upon\nthe decisions in the case of Tilokchand & Sons v. ITO [2019] 413 ITR 189\n(Mad.), CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa [2009] 309 ITR 329 (Kar), CIT v.\nKhoobchand M. Makhija [2014] 223 Taxman 189 (Kar) and CIT v. Gunamal\nJain [2017] 394 ITR 666 (Mad).\nIn the case of the appellant, the appellant has sold two residential\nproperties on 18.02.2016, therefore, benefit u/s 54 could not be given to the\nappellant.\n7.3.5 The A.O. called for information u/s.133(6) from the builder and the\nbuilder informed that the possession was given on 26.11.2021. The A.O. has\ntaken a view that agreement…

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

BALASUNDARAM MAHALAKSHMI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-4,, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1411/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1411/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ms. Balasundaram Mahalakshmi Dcit बनाम/ 216, Atd Road, Race Course, Non-Corporate Circle-4 Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiopm-6371-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ/वाल ,लेखा सद4 एवं माननीय +ी मनु कुमार िग7र, "ाियक सद4 के सम8। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1411/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ms. Balasundaram Mahalakshmi DCIT बनाम/ 216, ATD Road, Race Course, Non-Corporate Circle-4 Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AIOPM-6371-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)- Ld.A…

ACIT, NCC - 15 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI C.LINGESAN, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1828/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1828/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Lingesan, Income Tax, Old No. 1/163, New No. 1/279, Non Corporate Circle 15(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Semmancheri, Chennai 600 119. [Pan:Abppl8184N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri D. Anand, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 22.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Vide Order Dated 21.10.2022, The Itat Passed Its Order After Hearing Both The Sides. Subsequently, The Department Filed Miscellaneous Petition By Stating That Itat, By Order Dated 21.10.2022 Not Adjudicated Ground Nos. 2.1 & 2.2 & Therefore, The Order Passed By The Tribunal Was A Mistake Apparent

Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1828/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Shri Lingesan, Income Tax, Old No. 1/163, New No. 1/279, Non Corporate Circle 15(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Semmancheri, Chennai 600 119. [PAN:ABPPL8184N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by Shri AR V Sreenivasa…

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

…nching 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 indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee’s corresponding sale agreements had also pur…

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)

…nching 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 towers or residential blocks; as the case may be. This is indeed coupled with the fact tha…

KIRTHISIMHAN WIJEYANAYAKE,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1854/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50DSection 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ’सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ,ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय ,ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद: के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1854/Chny/2018 (िनधाCरणवषC / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1663/Chny/2017 (िनधाCरणवषC / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Anil Kirthisimhan Wijeyanayake ACIT बनाम/ No. 160, Thiruvenkatasamy Road, Non-Corporate Circle -2, Vs. R.S. Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AEWPA-8469-H (अप…

K.GOPALAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1501/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Smt. T.V.Muthu Abirami (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan – (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 264Section 54

…ction has been granted to both the other co-owners also. Regarding the revenue’s plea that deduction u/s 54 was not to be granted for more than one property, we find that the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Gumanmal Jain (80 Taxmann.com 21) would apply. This decision considers catena of judicial decisions as well as amendment made by Finance Act, 2014 and finally held that the assessee would be eligible to claim deduction for more than one property. Following the same, Ld. AO is directed to adopt sale consideration of Rs.182.76 Lacs and grant additional deduction u/s 54 for R…

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

…l unit for the purpose of Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.AR relied on various case laws to claim that these are one single residential unit. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 6. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Gumanmal Jain 394 ITR 666 (Madras) held as under : Quote , “7.CONCLUSION: ITA No.1881/PUN/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 Sonali Kiran Shivarkar L/h of Late Kiran Sopanrao Shivarkar [A] (i) We therefore have no hesitation in holding that in the instant case the assessee having got 15 flats along with his two sons will not disentitle him from getting the benefit under Section 54-F…

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

DESIRAZU SUNDARA SIVA RAO,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 633/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 54Section 54F

…of section 54F. This is in violation of section 54F of Income tax act. 8. Also, the judicial pronouncements cited by assessee in case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. D Ananda Basappa (2009) 309 ITR 329, Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Gumanmal Jain, (2017) 394 ITR 666 (Madras) have been perused. However, facts of the above cited cases are different from the present one. The judicial pronouncements of Honourable High Court of Karnataka and Honourable High court of Madras pertain to assessment years earlier to A.Y 2015-16 wherein rationale for term 'a residential house' used in section 54 and 54F has been pronou…

NAGARAJ DESIRAZU,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the assessees are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed

ITA 449/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S.Padmavathi

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 54Section 54F

SHRI. P. KRISHNA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1945/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA No.1945/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 Sri.P.Krishna Reddy The Assistant Commissioner No.14, 82, MIG Flats of Income-tax v. CBlock, Domlur 2nd Stage Circle 3-3-1 Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. PAN : ABHPK9985G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent by : Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 Date of Hearing : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed agains…

FAZELAAZHAR,OOTY vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, OOTY

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

ITA 425/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…52,76,785/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO despite the fact that following case laws were produced before CIT(A):- (i) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gumanmal Jain, 394 ITR 666. (ii) Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.Ananda Dasappa, (2009) 309 ITR 329 (iii) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Tilok Chand & Sons, (2019) 105 taxmann.com 151 Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. B…

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3