CIT v. Smt. V.R. Karpagam

50 Taxmann.com 55High Court2014#14255 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. V.R. Karpagam

Zannathu Firdouse, Chennai vs. ITO, Intnl. Taxn Ward-2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 422/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 422/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Zannathul Firdouse, The Income Tax Officer, Flat C-104, Raheja Regency, V. International Taxation Ward - 147, Santhome High Road, 2(2), R A Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aadpz-6639-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishna, Fca : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishna, FCA
Section 147Section 234Section 234ASection 54F

…an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee justified deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act, in light of certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Smt. V.R. Karpagam vs CIT [2014] 50 Taxmann.com 55 (Mad). The assessee had also made an alternative claim for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, in respect of purchase of a residential flat on 24.05.2012, for a consideration of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- and argued that, assuming for a moment, the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, for flats constructed by the builder as per JD…

V.Kalpagam, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3034/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3034/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. V. Kalpagam, The Income Tax Officer, No.2, Door No. 9, Raja V. Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Sadhan, Gajapathy Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. [Pan: Ahupk-0879-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023

For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3034/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. V. Kalpagam, The Income Tax Officer, No.2, Door No. 9, Raja v. Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Sadhan, Gajapathy Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. [PAN: AHUPK-0879-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by ""यथ…

Chinmay Gaurangbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT (Inter.Taxa)-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 611/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri D.K. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 54ESection 54FSection 54F(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘बी’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Chinmay Gaurangbhai Shah, ACIT 34-35 Indraprastha Bunglows, Vs Circle (Intl Taxation)-1, Opp. Management Enclave, Ahmedabad Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN : ALTPS 6470 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri D.K. Parikh, AR Revenue by…

Shri Rajeev Nataraj Legal Heir of Late Shri P Nataraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-10(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 848/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H Of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1St Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. Pan: Ahapn9475D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, Ar : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 11/02/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2008-09 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals] U/S 250 Of The Act & That Of The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R/W 147 Of The Act To The Extent Which Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143[3] R.W.S 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law Since The Mandatory Conditions As Envisaged

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR
Section 143Section 234Section 250Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Rajeev Nataraj, L/H of Late Shri P Nataraj, No. 63, 1st Cross, The Income Tax Udaya Nagar, Officer, Chikkalsandra, Off Ward 10(2), Uttarahalli Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 061. PAN: AHAPN9475D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, AR : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is fi…

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)-…

ACIT, Circle-36, Kolkata vs. Smt. Reshmi P Loyalka, Kolkata

In the result, both the Cross Objection of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1763/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.1763 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Goulen Hanshing, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No.1763 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 A.C.I.T., Circler-36, . -vs.- Smt. Reshmi P. Loyalka Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : ABBPL 0120 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.58/Kol/2016 (A/o I.T.A No.1763 /Kol/2016) Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Reshmi P. Loyalka -vs- A.C.I.T., Circle-36, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : ABBPL 0120 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Department : Shri Goulen Hanshing, CIT, DR For the Assessee : Shri S.Jhajharia, AR Date of Hearing : 09.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement…

ITO, Chennai vs. Gumanmal Jain, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 414/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Anandan, Advocatr
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(2)

…lding the assessee is eligible for the said claim even if the investment is made in more than one residential unit as the same is situating in the same door number relying on the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. V.R.Karpagam (2014) 50 Taxmann.com 55 (Mad.). 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen the fact the assessee has invested in flats situating in different blocks which are separate from each other and the CIT(A) ought to have invoked the provisions of section 54F(2) of the Income Tax Act. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) failed to note the fact that even though the residential units are…

CIT v. Smt. V.R. Karpagam (50 Taxmann.com 55) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax