CIT v. M. J. Siwani

366 ITR 356High Court2014#5380 most cited

What is CIT v. M. J. Siwani authority for?

Dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court does not necessarily mean the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, but rather that it found no reason to interfere with the High Court's ruling. The Karnataka High Court in CIT v. M. J. Siwani held that ownership or co-ownership of property is a crucial factor for claiming deduction under Section 54F.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. M. J. Siwani · Section 54F · ownership of property · co-ownership · deduction · capital gains · SLP dismissal · Karnataka High Court · Supreme Court

Also reported as

46 Taxmann.com 170226 Taxmann 394

Sections most often in play

Section 54FSection 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 54BSection 54CSection 54D

Issues it is cited on

national tax tribunalsection 293section 54f(1)section 65asection 65b(4)long-term capital assetsection 153b(1)(b)section 74section 2(28a)section 73section 153(2a)section 153b(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. M. J. Siwani

Kusum Sahgal, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), Delhi

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

ITA 341/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through LR Shri Vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi MG-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road DLF Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana PAN :AATPS3766J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain, CA & Shri Saurav Jain, Advs. Department by Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 28.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 21.11.2025 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the…

DCIT Central Circle 05, Delhi vs. Deepak Kothari, Kanpur

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

ITA 1834/DEL/2021[20017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…CIT - 53 taxmann.com 318 (SC) where the SLP filed by the taxpayer was dismissed. The ld Counsel stated that by way of the SLP, the Hon`ble Supreme Court did not concur with the finding of the Hon`ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v/s. M. J. Siwani - 366 ITR 356 (Kar.). Mere dismissal of the SLP does not constitute the judgment by the Supreme Court in the favour of the revenue. The ld Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. – Civil Appeal No. 2432/2019 ii. Smt. Tej Kumari vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 210 (Patna HC) 18.…

Deepak Kathari, Kanpur vs. ACIT, CC-5, New Delhi

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

ITA 1205/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…CIT - 53 taxmann.com 318 (SC) where the SLP filed by the taxpayer was dismissed. The ld Counsel stated that by way of the SLP, the Hon`ble Supreme Court did not concur with the finding of the Hon`ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v/s. M. J. Siwani - 366 ITR 356 (Kar.). Mere dismissal of the SLP does not constitute the judgment by the Supreme Court in the favour of the revenue. The ld Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. – Civil Appeal No. 2432/2019 ii. Smt. Tej Kumari vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 210 (Patna HC) 18.…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Sheriar Phirojsha Irani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2835/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisandwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

…erefore does not fulfil the requirement to claim deduction u/s 54F. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs M J Siwani, (2014) 366 ITR 356 (Kar) wherein on the issue of ownership/co-ownership of property for purpose of section 54F has been dealt in considerable detail and the Hon'ble Court did not agree with the view expressed by the tribunal and upheld the contention of Revenue, The SLP preferred against this decision of the Karnataka High Court has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Su…

Shweta Singh, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 33(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3528/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 250Section 54F

…7. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 18/03/2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v/s M.J. Siwani, [2014] 366 ITR 356 held that the assessee‟s claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act is not allowable, as she was the owner of more than one residential house at the time of sale of the original capital asset. Accordingly, the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs. 61,65,546 was disallowed and added to the total inc…

Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(3), C/O Arvind Silk Mills, Om Baug, Ashvini Surat. Kumar Road, Surat - 395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv1682L

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

…CIT - 53 taxmann.com 318 (SC) where the SLP filed by the taxpayer was dismissed. The ld Counsel stated that by way of the SLP, the Hon`ble Supreme Court did not concur with the finding of the Hon`ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v/s. M. J. Siwani - 366 ITR 356 (Kar.). Mere dismissal of the SLP does not constitute the judgment by the Supreme Court in the favour of the revenue. The ld Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. – Civil Appeal No. 2432/2019 ii. Smt. Tej Kumari vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 210 (Patna HC) 18.…

Manoj Tekriwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4147/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR CIT
Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 40Section 54

…of her individual property. In CIT vs Kapil Nagpal, [2016] 381 ITR 351 (Delhi), Hon’ble Delhi High Court also took the similar view and granted relief to the taxpayer under section 54F. 24. However, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs M.J. Siwani, [2014] 366 ITR 356 (Karnataka) took a contrary view and held that in terms of provisions of section 54F, where taxpayer on date of sale of long term capital asset owns a residential house even jointly with another person, his claim for deduction of capital gain arising from sale of asset has to be rejected. 25. We further find that the coordinate bench of Tribunal…

Lokesh Talanki, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Waghale CAFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addln CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 54F

…the re- opening of assessment and also the re-computation of capital gains. The CIT(A) held that the re-opening is valid and also confirmed the computation of capital gain by the AO relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M J Siwani 366 ITR 356. 4. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. We will first consider the legal ground raised challenging the reopening of assessment u/s. 148. The learned AR argued that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 is bad in law as no new material was found to justify the reopening . The learned AR submitted that all…

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1

…Spreadtrum. This dilution in Page 15 of 31 ownership results in abrogation of absolute right of the appellant. Dilution in ownership is also transfer under section 2(47) based on the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT v. M.J. Siwani [2014] 366 ITR 356 (Kam.). Where the owner of the intangible asset like know-how sells in or grants an exclusive license to another which pro-tanto disentitles the owner from exercising its rights therein, the transaction amounts to an assignment of capital rights and the payment to be regarded as a capital receipt. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: -…

Antony Parakal Kurian vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is allowed in part

ITA/254/2021HC Karnataka09 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54F

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH I.T.A.No.254/2021 BETWEEN : ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, D 83, PRESTIGE OZONE, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, VARTHUR KODI, BANGALORE-560 066, PAN: AFMPK 3991 B ...APPELLANT (BY SRI SUDHEENDRA B.R., ADV.) AND : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(3) (1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDE…

ACIT Circle-1, Kalyan vs. Shri. Krishnan Muthukumar, Thane

ITA 7450/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Acit, Circle-1 Shri Krishnan Muthukumar 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. 31/348, Aksharmahol Chs, Wayale Nagar, Kalyan, Telang Cross Road, West – 421301 Road No.1, Matunga (East) Mumbai -400 019 Pan No. Aakpm0170D (Revenue) (Assessee)

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 64(1)(iv)

…he could not be held to be the owner of a residential house within the meaning of Sec. 54F of the Act, the same did not find favor with the CIT(A). Relying on the judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT & Anr. Vs. M.J Siwani (2014) 366 ITR 356 (Kar) it was observed by the CIT(A) that the Hon‘ble High Court had held that where the assessee on the date of sale of long term ACIT, Circle-1, Kalyan West Vs. Shri. Krishna Muthukumar 5 ITA No. 7450/Mum/2019 – A.Y 2016-17 capital asset owned more than one residential house even jointly with another person, he was to be treated as the owner o…

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Smt Hema Krishnamurthy

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/25/2016HC Karnataka01 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 54F

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI I.T.A. NO.25 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA BANGALORE-560095. 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-15(3), 2ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD KORMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND K.V. ADV.,) AND: SMT. HEMA KRISHNAMURTHY 19, ORCHARD VIEW APARTMENTS BELLARY MAIN ROAD SADASHIVANAGAR BANGALORE-560080 PAN: AFJPP 6996A. ..…

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 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC – C” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member ITA No.2172/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 Late Smt.Prema Kumari The Income Tax Officer L/H Sri Praveen Kumar Vs. Ward 7(2) 278, Bellandur Main Road Bengaluru. Bengaluru East Bangalore – 560 037. PAN : AXZPP9579M. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.2173/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 Sri Krishna Reddy Praveen The Income Tax Officer Kumar Vs. Ward 7(2) 278, Bellandur Main Road Bengaluru. Bengaluru East Bangalore – 560 037. PAN : AXZPP9579M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ramakrishna Kamat, CA…

Late Smt. Prema Kumari Represented by Son & L/H Praveen Kumar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2172/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 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC – C” BENCH, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member ITA No.2172/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 Late Smt.Prema Kumari The Income Tax Officer L/H Sri Praveen Kumar Vs. Ward 7(2) 278, Bellandur Main Road Bengaluru. Bengaluru East Bangalore – 560 037. PAN : AXZPP9579M. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.2173/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 Sri Krishna Reddy Praveen The Income Tax Officer Kumar Vs. Ward 7(2) 278, Bellandur Main Road Bengaluru. Bengaluru East Bangalore – 560 037. PAN : AXZPP9579M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ramakrishna Kamat, CA…

Dev Kumar Roy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2350/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 Dev Kumar Roy Vs. The Income-tax- Officer, 44, Regency Margosa, Ward-3(1)(1), Kasturba Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 001. PAN : ANNPR 8181 R. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT Date of hearing : 17.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 13/7/2018 of CIT(A)-11, Benga…

ITO, Chennai vs. Shema Renny Abraham, Chennai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is treated as dismissed for statistical

ITA 3322/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Gopi Krishna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’ सी ’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम# BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 3322/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, Mrs. Shema Renny Abraham, Non-Corporate Circle -9(3), Vs. Janapriya Crest, Chennai – 600 34. No. 113, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [PAN: AKZPS 1467N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ% क& ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N. Gopi Krishna, JCIT )*यथ…

CIT v. M. J. Siwani (366 ITR 356) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax