How many judgments cite CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma?

104 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma (331 ITR 211), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54F, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(1), Section 148A(b).

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma

331 ITR 211High Court2011#1050 most cited

What is CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma authority for?

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

104

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma · Section 54 · Section 54F · capital gains exemption · "a residential house" · multiple residential units · Section 13 General Clauses Act · singular plural interpretation · long term capital gain · residential house exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(1)Section 148A(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 13(2)indexed cost of acquisition section 54 section 54f date of transfer section 45 fair market value long term capital gain scrutiny assessment section 13 transfer

Judgments citing CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma

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

…tricted. In this context, the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings placed reliance on the following decisions and also made submissions:- (a) The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs Smt. K.G. Rukminamma [2011] (196 Taxman 87)(331 ITR 211)(Kar.) held that wherein a residential house were transferred and 4 flats in a single residential complex were purchased by the appellant, and it was held that all four residential flats constitute a residential house for the purpose of Section 54 and that the four residential flats cannot be construed as four residential houses for the purpose o…

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

…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 not permissible and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been distinguished by the ld AO. 12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. We find that the assessee has purchased two adjacent units of house property and claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act. For the impugned as…

Smt. Kempanna Shylaja, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…r more than one residential unit with effect from 01.04.2015 by replacing word “a” with “one”. In this context, it is relevant to mention that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, prior to the amendment, in the case of CIT v. Smt.K.G.Rukminiamma reported in 331 ITR 211 had held that “residential unit house”, used in section 54 makes it clear that, it was not the intention of the legislature to convey the meaning that it refers to a single residential house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that if that was the intention, they would have used the word “one”. As in the earlier part, the words used are buildi…

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

…s and, accordingly, have restricted the exemption under section 54F to the cost of one flat only. However, the Karnntaka High Court, while interpreting the words ''a residential house' as appearing in section 54 in case of CITv. Suit. K.G. RukminiAmnta 120111 331 ITR 211/196 Tallinn 87/12010} 8 taxmann.com 121 (Kar.) has held that the expression 'a residential house' as appearing in section 54 cannot be interpreted in a manner to suggest that the exemption would be restricted to a single residential unit. The Karnntaka High Court held that 'a residential house' as mentioned in section 54(1) has to be understood i…

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

…amendment made in that act. Recently Honourable Karnataka High court has dealt with this issues in Arun 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,…

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 147Section 54Section 54E

Dinesh Chandra Dutta, Aligarh vs. CIT A, Aligarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 786/AGR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

…asset defined in section 54F as ‘a residential house’ has to be understood in plural. It is not necessary that all residential units should be single door number allotted. In this decision, the Tribunal, following the ratio in CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karn.)(HC), allowed the claim of assessee. In view of these decisions, we find no justification to discard the claim 4 made by the assessee u/s. 54 of the Act in the present case. We are, therefore, not inclined to sustain the impugned order. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/03/…

Sanjiv Ahuja, Delhi vs. ITO (International Taxation), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 977/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja,Sr. DR

Section 13(2)Section 54

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-1”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year 2012-13 Sanjiv Ahuja Vs. ITO (International 69, Taxation) Veer Nagar, Jain Colony Ward-1(1)(1) Delhi – 110 007 Delhi PAN ANDPA8054G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Akshat Jain, CA Department by : Shri Gaurav Dudeja,Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/02/2021 Date of 03/03/2021 pronouncement O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17/11/2016 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) 42 New Delhi relating to assessment yea…

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

…hat the units on the said floors were independent & self-contained and not "a residential house" and granted exemption for only one unit. The CIT(A) and Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim by relying on B.Ananda Basappa 309 ITR 329 (Kar) and K.G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 (Kar). On appeal by the ITA No. 2692/Bang/2018 department, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Hon'ble Court observed that as held in B.Ananda Bassappa (SLP dismissed) & K G Rukminiamma, the Revenue's contention that the phrase "a" residential house would mean "one" Halesh K.C., Bangalore Page 4 of 7 residential house is not…

Nilufer Sayed, Mumbai vs. ITO - 21(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3474/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3474/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nilufer Sayed Income Tax Officer-25(3)(5) बना A-601, Leela Sagar Mumbai. म/ Yari Road, Versova Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 061. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cgtps-8161-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 25/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)

…s CIT [11 Taxmann.com 312] was distinguished since no opinion, in detail, was expressed in the judgment. 4.3 The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Khoobchand M. Makhija [43 Taxmann.com 143] considering the decision of same court in CIT V/s Smt. K.G.Rukminiamma [331 ITR 211] interpreted the term ‘a’ in the context of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in the following manner: - 9. The word 'a' is not defined in the Act. When a word is not defined in the Act itself, it is permissible to refer to dictionaries to find out the general sense in which that word is understood in common parlance. However, in select…

Harshuprasad A Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5006/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledhanraj Raut Acit Cir-4 बनाम/ A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar Matruchaya Sopara Vs. Bhandar Ali, Nalasopara It Park Road No. 16Z, (W), Vasai Wagle Indl Estate, Thane. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopr9071J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpandey, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Dhanraj Raut ACIT Cir-4 बनाम/ A Wing, 6th Floor, Ashar Matruchaya Sopara Vs. Bhandar Ali, Nalasopara IT Park Road No. 16Z, (W), Vasai Wagle INDL Estate, Thane. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAOPR9071J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Sunil Deshpandey, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 03/12/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement 05/01/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN…

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

…mic. 8. The learned DR placed reliance on the orders passed by the Income Tax Authorities. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The facts of the assessee’s case are similar to the case of Smt.K.G.Rukminiamma reported in 331 ITR 221 (Kar.) In the case of K.G.Rukminiamma (supra) the assessee on a site measuring 30' x 110' had a residential premises. Under a joint development agreement the assessee gave that property to a builder for construction of residential units. Under the agreement, eight flats are to be put up in that property. Four flats representing 48% is the share o…

Lakshminarasimha, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 768/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaishri Lakshminarasimha, No.1686, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. Pan Aczpl 9998H ….Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Kannan Narayan, Jcit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayan, JCIT (D.R)

Section 147Section 45Section 54F

…The claim of the assessee is that the 4 assessee invested in single residential unit and is eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Act on the entire value of the building and relied on judgment on judicial High Court in the case of K. G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 wherein it was held that the phrase “a” residential house would mean “one” residential house is not correct. The expression “a” residential house should be understood in a sense that building should be of residential house in nature and “a” and should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Section 54/54F uses the expression “a residenti…

Sri. Chandrashekar Veerabhadraiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle- 6(2)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2293/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri. Chandrashekar Veerabhadraiah, Ito, No.54, Ramachandrapura, Jalahalli Circle – 6[2][4], Vs. Post, Bangalore – 560 013. Bangalore. Pan No : Aebpv 1717 Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit(Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 234Section 54F

…t. The claim of the assessee is that the assessee invested in single residential unit and is eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Act on the entire value of the building and relied on judgment on judicial High Court in the case of K. G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 wherein it was held that the phrase “a” residential house would mean “one” residential house is not correct. The expression “a” residential house should be understood in a sense that building should be of residential house in nature and “a” and should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Section 54/54F uses the expression “a residenti…

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)

…uch date, any residential house, the income from which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property", other than the new asset.' 14. The aforesaid provision was examined by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 221 (Karn). In the context of section 54F which is in para materia under section 54F of the Act, the Hon’ble High Court held as follows: “8. For a proper appreciation of the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to have a careful look at Section 54 of the income Tax Act, which reads as under: 54. Profit on sale of property used for residence:- (1) S…

Y C Gopinath, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 3223/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Shyanbhog, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…ed to exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act on the multiple number of flats received by him. Shri Y.C. Gopinath, Bangalore Page 2 of 5 4. The CIT(A)-2 has held that the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. K.G. Rukminiyamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 is not applicable to the facts of the appellant’s case, as in the said case, a residential house was demolished and flats were constructed through joint development agreement. In the case of your appellant, the vacant land was given for joint development for construction of flats and hence the said decision is not applicable in your appellant’s c…

Shri Dhanraj Baxiram Chopra, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 407/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.F. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 131Section 54Section 54F

…e of the courts have taken a view the word ‘a residential house’ uses under section 54F of the Act does not refer to one residential unit. In this regard we find that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma reported in [2011] 331 ITR 211 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee wherein it was held as under: The context in which the expression 'a residential house' is used in section 54 makes it clear that it was not the intention of the legislation to convey the meaning that it refers to a single residential house. If that was the intention, they would have used the word '…

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…

Krishna Reddy Praveen Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2173/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 54Section 54F

…in the eyes of law. Late Smt Prema Kumari & Sri Krishna Reddy Praveen Kumar. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant’s case is squarely covered by three High Court judgments (Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Smt.K.G.Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211, High Court of Madras, in the case of CIT v. Smt. V.R.Karpagam (2014) Taxmann.com 55 and High Court of Andhra Pradesh in The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad v. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 33 Taxmann.com 212] as well as two orders of jurisdictional ITAT, Bangalore in Smt.Nethravathi v. The Income Tax Officer – ITA No.2630/Bang/2017 and Mrs.S.Sum…