CIT v. Natu Hansraj

105 ITR 43High Court1976#13199 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. Natu Hansraj

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar vs. Sanjay Nemichand Lohade, Ahmednagar

ITA 982/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 54F

…land which is formed part and parcel of the old big bungalow and therefore 4 ITA No.982/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2008-09 it is to be treated as land appurtenant. In support of this contention we have relied upon the following decisions: a. CIT v. Natu Hansraj [1976] 105 ITR 43 (guj.); b. Addl. CIT v. Vidya Prakash Talwar [1981] 132 ITR 661 (Delhi); c. CIT v. Zaibunnisa Beguni [1985] 151 ITR 320 (AP); d. CIT v. Kodandas Chanchlomal [1985] 155 ITR 273 (Guj.); e. M. Abdul Sattar v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 642 (Karp); f. CIT v. Kamala Ranganathan [1990] 186 ITR 536 (Mad.); g. CIT v. Mrs. P. Rajasulochana [1994] 210 ITR 423 (Mad.…

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

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

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

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

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

Section 45Section 54

…uch indeed could not be the case of the assessee since no period of time elapsed between the completion of construction of the ground floor and the letting out of a major portion of it to tenant. In the second decision in the case of CIT v. Natu Hansraj [1976]105 ITR 43, the Gujarat High Court held that no single factor including whether or not the property newly acquired by the assessee was wholly or substantially acquired by him for the purpose of his own residence after purchase or construction, as the case may be, would be determinative of the matter. Even if the new property was not substantially put to use…

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

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

Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, जी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat CHS Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No.ACWPG5915E Shri C.S. Sharma JCIT-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नध…

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

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

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

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

…" Mrs. Gulshanbanoo R. Mukhi v. Jt. CIT [2002] 83 ITD 649 (Mum.) (para 1), " Mahomedally Tajbhoy v. CEPT [1951] 20 ITR 274 (Bom.) (para 5), 8 Amirali Akbarali Engineer " Dr. Anand Basappa v. ITO [2004] 91 ITD 53 (Bang.) (para 6), " CIT v. Natu Hansraj [1976] 105 ITR 43 (Guj.) (para 6), " CIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/ 2 Taxman 541 (SC) (para 6), " Keshavji Raoji & Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 1/ 49 Taxman 87 (SC) (para 7) and " B.B. Sarkar v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 150/ 7 Taxman 239 (Cal.) (para 10). 2.3. It is further noted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Raman Kumar Suri [2013] 29 ta…

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. Shrey Guleri, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6147/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-16(1) Shri Shrey Sharma Guleri बनाम/ Room No.439, Aayakar Prime Channel Software Bhawan, 101, M.K. Road Communications P. Ltd. Vs. Mumbai 400 020 215, Kuber Complex New Link Road Andheri (West) Mumbai 400 053 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaapg4566H याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Dilip V. Lakhani ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…uch indeed could not be the case of the assessee since no period of time elapsed between the completion of construction of the ground floor and the letting out of a major portion of it to tenant. In the second decision in the case of CIT v. Natu Hansraj [1976]105 ITR 43, the Gujarat High Court held that no single factor including whether or not the property newly acquired by the assessee was wholly or substantially acquired by him for the purpose of his own residence after purchase or construction, as the case may be, would be determinative of the matter. Even if the new property was not substantially put to use…

Mr. Arunkumar Nathan, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1041/BANG/2017[2013 - 14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-3, Bengaluru
Section 54

…assessee, the option is available with the assessee to claim benefit under Section 54 in respect of the residential house purchased for the assessee's own residence. On this point the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nathu Hansraj 105 ITR 43 is relevant wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under : “ It is well settled that words of a statute, when there is doubt about their meaning, are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the legislature has in view. Their meaning is found not so much in a strictly gra…

CIT v. Natu Hansraj (105 ITR 43) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax