CIT v. Tikyomal Jasanmal

82 ITR 95High Court1971#16151 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 54EC Section 54F

Judgments citing CIT v. Tikyomal Jasanmal

Navin Surya, Worli, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4772/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Hema Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…rtion of the house. 11. We are supported in our above referred view by a judgment 11. We are supported in our above referred view by a judgment 11. We are supported in our above referred view by a judgment delivered in case of CIT vs. Tikyomal Jasanmal (1971) 82 ITR 95 (Guj) : delivered in case of CIT vs. Tikyomal Jasanmal (1971) 82 ITR 95 (Guj) : delivered in case of CIT vs. Tikyomal Jasanmal (1971) 82 ITR 95 (Guj) : TC 22R.261, wherein it was held that a portion of house property TC 22R.261, wherein it was held that a portion of house property TC 22R.261, wherein it was held that a portion of house property con…

Ms. Sangeeta Chopra, Ujjain vs. The Pr. CIT. Ujjain, Ujjain

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

ITA 631/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(3)Section 22Section 263Section 54

…ent residential units particularly in these days when multi-storeyed flats are becoming the order of the day. That the expression "house property" would also take into account a unit of house property has also been accepted in CIT vs. Tikyomal Jasanmal (1971) 82 ITR 95 (Guj) . Here for the purpose of the present case, the two units comprising the house in South Extension could be occupied independently. The second consideration to be kept in mind in the light of the above is that we are not concerned here with what happened prior to 29th Dec., 1964, when the house at Darya Ganj was sold but only with what constru…

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

…d from 27, 1982, on his transfer to Baroda can be said to be a factor that would bring the petitioner within the mischief of clause (i). In this context, it is desirable to refer to the Gujarat High Court decision in the cast, CIT vs. Tikyomal Jasanmal [1971] 82 ITR 95. The facts in that case were that out of the total constructed portion of the house admeasuring 1,389 sq.ft, the assessee had let out an area of 734 sq. Ft., i.e., more than half, immediately on completion of the construction. It was held that the new house was not constructed by the assessee for the purpose of his own residence. The court, however…

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

…hendra Goyal 1982, on his transfer to Baroda can be said to be a factor that would bring the petitioner within the mischief of clause (i). In the context, it is desirable to refer to the Gujarat High Court decision in the case, CIT v. Tikyomal Jasanmal [1971]82 ITR 95. The facts in that case were that out of the total constructed portion of the house admeasuring 1,389 sq. ft., the assessee had let out an area of 734 sq. ft., i.e., more than half, immediately on completion of the construction. It was held that the new house was not constructed by the assessee for the purpose of his own residence. The court, howev…

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

…from May 27, 1982, on his transfer to Baroda can be said to be a factor that would bring the petitioner within the mischief of clause (i). In the context, it is desirable to refer to the Gujarat High Court decision in the case, CIT v. Tikyomal Jasanmal [1971]82 ITR 95. The facts in that case were that out of the total constructed portion of the house admeasuring 1,389 sq. ft., the assessee had let out an area of 734 sq. ft., i.e., more than half, immediately on completion of the construction. It was held that the new house was not constructed by the assessee for the purpose of his own residence. The court, howev…

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