CIT v. Syed Ali Adil

352 ITR 418High Court2013#2528 most cited

What is CIT v. Syed Ali Adil authority for?

Exemption under Section 54 is available for the purchase of a residential property even if it comprises several independent units, as long as the property is of a residential nature.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Syed Ali Adil · Section 54 · residential house · independent units · property purchase · capital gains exemption · multiple units · residential nature · sale proceeds

Also reported as

33 Taxmann.com 212

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 234BSection 234CSection 13(2) of the General Clauses ActSection 143(3)Section 1897Section 234-BSection 234-C

Issues it is cited on

best judgment assessmentsection 54fdocuments seizedsection 54section 133asection 234scrutiny assessmentincriminating materialundisclosed incomepersonappeal before the tribunaldocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Syed Ali Adil

Abhijit Ashok Bhalerao, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 146/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 54

…ect of all the three flats, the deduction u/s. 54 may be granted in respect of two adjoining flats purchased on 11th floor. In support of his alternate prayer the ld. AR placed reliance on following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Syed Ali Adil, 352 ITR 418 (AP); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D. Ananda Basappa, 309 ITR 329 (Kar.) 16. In respect of ground No. 3 of appeal the ld. AR submitted that the assessee had contributed towards payment of compensation for vacating ancestral property. The total compensation paid to tenant was Rs.12,00,000/-. The assessee has paid 1/3rd share of total compe…

Ashok Dattatraya Bhalerao, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 148/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 54

…ect of all the three flats, the deduction u/s. 54 may be granted in respect of two adjoining flats purchased on 11th floor. In support of his alternate prayer the ld. AR placed reliance on following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Syed Ali Adil, 352 ITR 418 (AP); ii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. D. Ananda Basappa, 309 ITR 329 (Kar.) 16. In respect of ground No. 3 of appeal the ld. AR submitted that the assessee had contributed towards payment of compensation for vacating ancestral property. The total compensation paid to tenant was Rs.12,00,000/-. The assessee has paid 1/3rd share of total compe…

Ravi Shankar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3270/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Mr. Ravi Shankar The Assistant Commissioner Flat No.S4, Apsara Building, बिधम/ Of Income Tax-16(3), Aaykar Nargis Dutt Road, Pali Hill, Bhavan, Mumbai 400 020 Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Adwpr7959N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54

…amendment the assessee was entitled the claim deduction in respect of investments made in more than one residential house. We find that a similar view had also been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP). 12. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case in context of the issue under consideration. We are of the considered view that in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations and the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Courts as had been deliberated upon by us hereinabove, it can safely be concluded that prior to A.Y 2015-16…

ACIT, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad vs. Fazlunnisa Begum, Hyderabad

ITA 66/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Dr. Divya K.J - DRFor Respondent: Shri P. Vinod
Section 45Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. No.66/Hyd/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Asst. Commissioner of vs. Smt. Fazlunnisa Begum, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-4(1), PAN: ABJPF 0159 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Smt. Dr. Divya K.J - DR For Revenue : Shri P. Vinod Date of Hearing : 09.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2018 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, VP. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-8, Hyderabad and it pertains to A.Y. 2…

ITO, Ward-3(2), Bhubaneswar vs. Gaya Santara, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal

ITA 468/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year :2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs. Gaya Santara, Plot No.63/A, 3(2), Bhubaneswar Sector-A, Zone-D, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.ADQPS 3243 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year :2008-09 Gaya Santara, Plot No.63/A, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Sector-A, Zone-D, 3(2), Bhubaneswar Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.ADQPS 3243 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, AR Revenu…

Mahesh Kumar Poddar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1511/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 54

…ious High Courts and different benches of the Tribunal: 1. CIT & Anr VS Smt. K.G. Rukminiamma 331 ITR 211 (Kar) 3 I.T.A. No.1511/Mum/2016 2. CIT vs Anand Basappa 309 ITR 329 (Kar) 3. CIT vs Khoochand M Makhija 223 Taxmann 189 (Kar) 4. CIT vs SAyed Ali Adil 352 ITR 418 (AP) 5. CIT vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153 (Del) 6. CIT vs V.R. Karpagam 373 ITR 127 (Mad) 7. Dy.CI vs Jai Trikanand Rao 149 ITD 112 (ITAT, Mum) 8. Girdhar Mohanani vs ITO ITA No.4591/Mum/2013& 4650/Mum/2013 3. Per contra, the ld.Dr relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 4. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and judgemen…