CIT v. SYED ALI ADIL (AP)(HC)

260 CTR 219Reported decision2013#17434 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. SYED ALI ADIL (AP)(HC)

Farooq Abdulla Merchant, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

…of ITAT Mumbai in the case or Nilesh Pravin Vora and Yatin Pravin Vora (Supra) and also the exemption is withdrawn in the subsequent year by the assessee himself exemption claimed by the assessee cannot be disallowed."  CIT VS. SYED ALI ADIL (AP)(HC) (2013) 260 CTR 219 DATED 20.12.2012 Held that the expression "a residential house" in section. 54 (1) has to be understood in the sense that the building should be of residential nature and "a" should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Where an assessee had purchased two residential flats. he is entitled to exemption under section 54 in respect of cap…

Sunandan Kumar Minocha, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-63(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3135/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harpal Singh, Senior DR

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 54

…of ITAT Mumbai in the case or Nilesh Pravin Vora and Yatin Pravin Vora (Supra) and also the exemption is withdrawn in the subsequent year by the assessee himself exemption claimed by the assessee cannot be disallowed." • CIT VS. SYED ALI ADIL (AP)(HC) (2013) 260 CTR 219 DATED 20.12.2012 Held that the expression "a residential house" in section. 54 (1) has to be understood in the sense that the building should be of residential nature and "a" should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Where an assessee had purchased two residential flats. he is entitled to exemption under section 54 in respect of ca…

Dipti Nalin Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 17(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3274/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M Balaganeshdipti Nalin Parikh, Crescent Bay T4 Apt. 3103-3104, Near, Parel Bhoiwada, Opp. Cancer Society, Jeerabai Wadai Road, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aabpp5053F ............ Appellant Vs. Ito-17(1)(4), 115, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sonia Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 54Section 54(1)

…ial purposes and therefore, deduction u/s. 54 was allowable, being a finding of fact, did not give rise to a substantial of law." 6 CIT v. Syed Ali The Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh Adil(AP) (HC) held that "he is entitled to exemption u/s. 54 (2013) 260 CTR 219 in respect of capital gains on sale of its property on purchase of both flats, more so, when the flats are situated side by side and the builder has effected modification of the flats to make it as one unit, despite the fact that the flats were purchased by separate sale deeds.” 7 Commissioner of The Honorable Bombay High Court held that Income…

Sri Omkar Chadha, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 346/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 346/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Omkar Chadha, Vs Income Tax Officer, I-39, Jangpura Extn., Ward-54(3), New Delhi-110014 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc8329G Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2020

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 54F

…use consists of se independent units cannot be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of deduction under section 54/ 54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited.” 13. We have also examined the case of CIT Vs Syed Ali Adil 260 CTR 219 wherein it was held that expression “a residential 7 Omkar Chadha house” in section. 54 (1) has to be understood in the sense that the building should be of residential nature and “a” should not be understood to indicate a singular number. Where an assessee had purchased two residential flats, he is entitle, exemption under section 54 in respect…

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

…dential flat only and accordingly re-worked out the capital gains. 4. On an appeal filed by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Syed Ali Adil (260 CTR 219) and also took note of the amendment to section 54 of the Act by Finance Bill 2014-15 w.e.f 01.04.2015, to conclude that the emphasis on restriction of deduction to ‘one independent residential unit’ at the time of reinvestment cannot be extended to ‘different flats’ though they are meant for residential use, was only prospective in nature and it…