CIT v. Gumanmal Jain

394 ITR 666High Court2017#2543 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'.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 54FSection 234BSection 234CSection 46ASection 54Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

joint development agreementjdasection 54fdate of transfersection 54childlong term capital gainlimited scrutinytransferappeal before the tribunalpersontotal income

Judgments citing CIT v. Gumanmal Jain

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

…/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 above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29th November, 2021. (A…

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

…. 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, there was a mistake apparent on record in the order passed in ITA Nos. 732, 889 & 890/…

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

…. 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, there was a mistake apparent on record in the order passed in ITA Nos. 732, 889 & 890/…

B.Sundararajan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 95/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

For Respondent: Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…sing the total income at ₹. 6,59,56,280/- after making the disallowance under section 54F of the Act of ₹. 6,39,34,520/-. On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Smt. V.R. Karpagam [2015] 373 ITR 127 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Gumanmal Jain [2017] 394 ITR 666 (Mad.), the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow assessee’s claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. 3. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that even before the amendment to section 54F of the Act by the Finance Act, 2014, the section did not envisage the reinvestment in multiple properties located in differe…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai vs. Shri. B Sundarajan, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 431/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

For Respondent: Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…sing the total income at ₹. 6,59,56,280/- after making the disallowance under section 54F of the Act of ₹. 6,39,34,520/-. On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Smt. V.R. Karpagam [2015] 373 ITR 127 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Gumanmal Jain [2017] 394 ITR 666 (Mad.), the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow assessee’s claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. 3. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that even before the amendment to section 54F of the Act by the Finance Act, 2014, the section did not envisage the reinvestment in multiple properties located in differe…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Warangal vs. Gyana Kumari Rojanala, Warangal

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1779/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. R. Deepak, D.R
Section 2(47)Section 45Section 53ASection 54Section 54F

…umari Rojanala, Warangal AY 2016-17 11. We hold that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs." d) Further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Gumanmal Jain [2017](394 ITR 666)(Madras) had reviewed various judgements related to Section 54 and 54F of various Courts including subsequent amendments brought to section 54 and 54F and the non-applicability to the pre-amendment scenario. It is also noted that thee facts and circumstances of the issue in the appellant's case are similar to those in the case of Syed Ali Adil wh…

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

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 6613/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Vs. ITO,Ward-32(2)(2) Madhu B.Khatri A-301, Bathia Building C-11, R.No.304, 3rd Floor No.1, S.V.Road Pratyakshkar Bhavan Borivali(W) BKC, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400092 Mumbai-400 051 PAN : AITPK8826F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Department by Ms. Usha Gaikwad Date of Hearing 18.05.2021 Date of Pronouncement 01.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-…

Mr. Maurice Patrick De Rebello, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1351/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ashok A.Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54

…pplicable to one residential house in India. However, prior to said amendment, a residential house would include multiple flats/residential units. Similar decisions were rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Gumanmal Jain reported in 394 ITR 666 (Mad.) 9.2 In the present case, all the flats for which the assessee is claiming exemption u/s 54 of the I.T.Act are situated in the 7 Sri.Maurice Patrick De Rebello. same premises. Therefore, the judgment rendered in the case of Smt.K.G.Rukminiamma (supra) will squarely apply. In the light of the above judicial pronouncements on identical facts…

M/S K.Babu (HUF), Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 942/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. K. Babu (Huf), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2, Dollars Colony, Ward – 7(2)(3), 1St Cross, 2Nd Main, 4Th Phase, Bengaluru. J P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. Pan: Aaggk 0809 G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri. K. Babu (HUF), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.57/2, Dollars Colony, Ward – 7(2)(3), 1st Cross, 2nd Main, 4th Phase, Bengaluru. J P Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 078. PAN: AAGGK 0809 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 19.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 19.11.2020 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appe…

Smt. Asha Akhilesh Shukla, Kalyan vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Solapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1576/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri J.G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, DCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

…was in the same building. It is also a fact that on the two adjacent flats which were purchased by the assessee, deduction u/s 54F of the Act was granted by the AO. I find that Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gumanmal Jain reported in (2017) 394 ITR 666 after considering the amendment made to Sec.54F of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, of 2014 held that prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 (from A.Y. 2015-16 onwards), the residential house would include multiple flats / residential units. It has further held that even if the flats/apartments were…

ITO Non Corp Ward 14 (4), Chennai vs. Smt. B Vathsala, Chennai

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

ITA 1112/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1112/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. B. Vathsala, Non-Corporate Ward-14(4), Vs. No.34/30, Umapathy Street, Chennai. West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Actpb 9534H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao Vana, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai Dated 15.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground In This Appeal Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow The Assessee’S Claim Of Deduction Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…sing the total income at ₹. 6,59,56,280/- after making the disallowance under section 54F of the Act of ₹. 6,39,34,520/-. On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Smt. V.R. Karpagam [2015] 373 ITR 127 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Gumanmal Jain [2017] 394 ITR 666 (Mad.), the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow assessee’s claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. 3. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that even before the amendment to section 54F of the Act by the Finance Act, 2014, the section did not envisage the reinvestment in multiple properties located in differ…

Legal Heirs of Late Shri Sunil Dutt, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

ITA 2972/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2972/Mum/2012 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha
Section 143(3)Section 148

…Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vrs. Raman Kumar Suri (2013) 212 Taxman 411/29 taxman.com 231 (Bom)and further relied upon the following case laws:- 1. 228 Taxman 62(SC) CIT v Gita Duggal 2. 54 ITR(Trib) 37 (Mum) ACIT v Sanjay B Pahadia 3. 394 ITR 666(Mad) CIT v Gumanmal Jain 4. 45 ITR (Trib) 228 (Mum) Nilesh Pravin Vora & Anr. v ITO 5. 413 ITR 189 (Mad) Tilokchand And Sons v ITO 17. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that it was not brought to the notice of authorities below about the combined flats and further he submitted that it is not proved by the assessee that the flats were combine…

Smt. Ranjana Ajay Chikhale, Navi Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 740/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvediआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.740/Pun/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shrinivas VenkatramanFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh R. Pardeshi
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…that Section 54F the I.T.Act does not require the residential property to be built in a particular manner. Ld.A.R. further submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gumanmal Jain reported in (2017) 394 ITR 666. From the copy of the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court, he pointed that the Madras High Court in the case of Gumanmal Jain (supra) has considered the amendment made to Sec.54F of the Act by the Finance Act No.2 of 2014 and after considering the amendment, it has held that prior to the amendment, residential house would include multiple flat…

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-…

Rajesh G. Gargatte, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 262/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.262/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ………. अपीलाथ" / Shri Rajesh G. Gargatte, Row House No.5, Appellant Orchids, S.No.24/14, D.P. Road, Behind Medipoint Hospital, Aundh, Pune – 411 007. Pan : Aaxpg9886H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Pune. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Samarat Rahi
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.262/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment year : 2009-10 ………. अपीलाथ" / Shri Rajesh G. Gargatte, Row House No.5, Appellant Orchids, S.No.24/14, D.P. Road, Behind Medipoint Hospital, Aundh, Pune – 411 007. PAN : AAXPG9886H. बनाम v/s ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Pune. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak / Shri C.S. Chandrashekhar. Revenue by : Shri Samarat Rahi. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date 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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2006-07 Sri Suresh C. # 1032/1, 1st Main, The Deputy Commissioner of Geethanjali Layout, Vs. Income Tax, New Thippasandra, Circle-7(2), BANGALORE BANGALORE [PAN: AHCPS 1120Q] APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 10-04-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 12-04-2019 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan, Vice President : This is an appeal by the assessee against the order date…

K Gopal Raj, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Cen.Circle-1(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 773/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…sessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F, even, it is assumed 13 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others that transfer took place during this AY. For this proposition he relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Jumanmal Jain, [2017] 394 ITR 666 (Mad.) 2. Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram, [2013] 144 ITD 325 (Hyd.) 7. Ld. DR submitted that reopening should not be on isolation, but, in this case, ITAT has confirmed the findings of ld. CIT(A) for the AY 2008-09, therefore, the AO has initiated proceedings based on the registered document clauses. He further submitted that change of development…

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Hyderabad vs. K Gopal Raj, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 765/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…sessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F, even, it is assumed 13 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others that transfer took place during this AY. For this proposition he relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Jumanmal Jain, [2017] 394 ITR 666 (Mad.) 2. Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram, [2013] 144 ITD 325 (Hyd.) 7. Ld. DR submitted that reopening should not be on isolation, but, in this case, ITAT has confirmed the findings of ld. CIT(A) for the AY 2008-09, therefore, the AO has initiated proceedings based on the registered document clauses. He further submitted that change of development…

ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Kosetty Nagaraju, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 343/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…sessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F, even, it is assumed 13 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others that transfer took place during this AY. For this proposition he relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Jumanmal Jain, [2017] 394 ITR 666 (Mad.) 2. Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram, [2013] 144 ITD 325 (Hyd.) 7. Ld. DR submitted that reopening should not be on isolation, but, in this case, ITAT has confirmed the findings of ld. CIT(A) for the AY 2008-09, therefore, the AO has initiated proceedings based on the registered document clauses. He further submitted that change of development…

ITO, Ward-7(3), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Kosetty Kishore, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 342/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal
Section 132Section 143(3)

…sessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F, even, it is assumed 13 I.T.A. No. 342/Hyd/15 and others Kosetty Koshore and others that transfer took place during this AY. For this proposition he relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Jumanmal Jain, [2017] 394 ITR 666 (Mad.) 2. Vittal Krishna Conjeevaram, [2013] 144 ITD 325 (Hyd.) 7. Ld. DR submitted that reopening should not be on isolation, but, in this case, ITAT has confirmed the findings of ld. CIT(A) for the AY 2008-09, therefore, the AO has initiated proceedings based on the registered document clauses. He further submitted that change of development…