How many judgments cite CIT v. V.R. Karpagam?

40 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. V.R. Karpagam (373 ITR 127), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. V.R. Karpagam come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 54F, Section 143(1), Section 143(3), Section 271(1)(c), Section 32, Section 54.

CIT v. V.R. Karpagam

373 ITR 127High Court2015#2975 most cited

What is CIT v. V.R. Karpagam authority for?

The principles for exemption under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act apply equally to Section 54F, allowing exemption for multiple residential units received under a joint development agreement if the assessment year is prior to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 amendment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. V.R. Karpagam · 373 ITR 127 · Section 54F · Section 54 · joint development agreement · residential units · exemption · Finance Act 2014 · amendment · assessment year

Sections most often in play

Section 54F Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32 Section 54

Issues it is cited on

section 54(1)section 13(2)joint development agreement section 54f indexed cost of acquisition section 54 date of transfer long term capital gains long term capital gain section 13 transfer india

Judgments citing CIT v. V.R. Karpagam

Mi Overseas Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2956/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR

Section 263Section 44BSection 9

…T versus Ericsson AB 343 ITR 470 (Delhi), DIT versus Nokia networks OY 358 ITR 259 (Delhi), DIT versus LG Cable Ltd ITA 703 of 2009 dated 24/12/2010 (Delhi), DIT versus Xelo Pty Ltd 203 taxman 475 (Bombay), LS cable Ltd 331 ITR 35 (AR), Deepak Cable India Ltd 337 ITR 127, ION Geophysical Corporation versus DCIT 72 taxmann.com 298 and National petroleum construction Co versus ACIT 20 ITR (T) 545 (Delhi). He further submitted that the provisions of Section 44 BB of the income tax are applicable only to the services/facilities and providing plant and machinery on hire and does not apply on sale of goods and material…

Mi Overseas Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3072/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR

Section 263Section 44BSection 9

Nilufer Sayed, Mumbai vs. ITO - 21(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3474/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3474/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nilufer Sayed Income Tax Officer-25(3)(5) बना A-601, Leela Sagar Mumbai. म/ Yari Road, Versova Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 061. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cgtps-8161-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 25/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)

…].' 7 Nilufer Sayed Assessment Year: 2011-12 4.4 Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in its earlier decision titled as CIT V/s Gunamal Jain [160 DTR 221 03/03/2017] after applying the decisions of same court in CIT V/s V.R. Karpagam [373 ITR 127] and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT V/s Smt. K.G.Rukminiamma [331 ITR 211]. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT V/s D. Ananda Basappa [309 ITR 329] took similar view and dismissed revenue’s appeal by holding that no substantial question of law arose. 4.5 Keeping in vie…

Mr. Maurice Patrick De Rebello, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1351/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ashok A.Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54

…the appellate authority were justified in holding that there is no liability to pay Capital Gains tax as the case squarely falls under sec. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.1 The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. V.R Karpagam reported in 373 ITR 127 (Mad.) on identical facts have decided the issue of deduction u/s 54F of the I.T.Act for five flats in favour of the assessee. The assessee in the case of 6 Sri.Maurice Patrick De Rebello. V.R.Karpagam (supra) entered into an agreement with M for development of a piece of land owned by it. As per agreement, assessee was to receive 43.75% of built…

Arun K Thiagarajan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

ITA/25/2011HC Karnataka18 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 54

…, ITA NO.194/2010 (KARNATAIKA), ‘TILOKCHAND AND SONS VS. ITO’, 413 ITR 189 (MADRAS), ‘CIT VS. GITA DUGGAL’, 228 TAXMAN 62 (SC), ‘CIT VS. GITA DUGGAL’, 357 ITR 153 (DELHI), ‘ CIT VS. D.ANAND BASAPPA’, 309 ITR 329 (KARNATAKA), ‘CIT VS. VR KARPAGAM’, 373 ITR 127 (MADRAS), ‘CIT VS. SYED ALI ADIL’, 352 ITR 418 (ANDHRA PRADESH), ‘G.CHINNADURAI VS. ITO’, 74 TAXMANN.COM 227 (MADRAS). 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the word used ‘a residential house’ has to be interpreted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that assessee in the fa…

ITO Non Corp Ward 14 (4), Chennai vs. Smt. B Vathsala, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1112/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1112/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. B. Vathsala, Non-Corporate Ward-14(4), Vs. No.34/30, Umapathy Street, Chennai. West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Actpb 9534H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao Vana, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai Dated 15.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground In This Appeal Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow The Assessee’S Claim Of Deduction Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…under section 143(3) r. w s. 147 of the Act by assessing the total income at ₹. 6,59,56,280/- after making the disallowance under section 54F of the Act of ₹. 6,39,34,520/-. On appeal, by following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Smt. V.R. Karpagam [2015] 373 ITR 127 (Mad.) and CIT vs. Gumanmal Jain [2017] 394 ITR 666 (Mad.), the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow assessee’s claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. 3. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that even before the amendment to section 54F of the Act by the Finance Act, 2014, the section did not envisage the r…

Hemant Ishwarlal Desai, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 180/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am Hemant Ishwarlal Desai Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-3(1) 305-306, Mahima Heights, Nr. Shardayatan Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat. School, Chandani Chowk, Surat-395007. Pan/Gir No.Abkpd0745Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah Revenue By Ms. Smitha V. Nair (Sr. Dr)

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…ng Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee with respect to two flats purchased by the assessee as discussed above. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT v. V. R. Karpagam MANU/TN/1390/2o14: (2015)373 ITR 127 (Mad), has clearly held that the amendment to provision of section 54F is effective from April 1, 2015, which makes it clear that benefit of section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to the amendment it was clear that a residential house would include multiple residential 4 A.Y.2013-14 units." Similar view was held…

Smt. Minal Nayan Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr, CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate with Shri ParinFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 54ESection 54F

…nts namely; CIT vs. Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka); CIT vs. Gita Duggal (2013) 357 ITR 153 (Delhi); CIT vs. Gita Duggal (2014) 52 taxmann.com 246 (SC), CIT vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP) and CIT vs. Smt. V. R. Karpagam (2015) 373 ITR 127 (Madras) for the construction of expression ‘a residential house’ in the context of Section 54 & 54F of the Act. Different Courts noted above have echoed that expression ‘a residential house’ would encompass different residential units located on the different floors of the same building. On facts, we note that all the three units are located on…

M/S.Rashmi Singh, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-26, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2380/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 263Section 50CSection 54

…one flat. Learned counsel submitted that this amendment is prospective and is not applicable to the current assessment year which A.Y. 2013-14. In this regard he referred to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. V.K. Rarpagam (373 ITR 127). In this case it was expounded that amendment to section 54F limiting the exemption to only one flat was effective from April 1, 2015. Hon'ble High Court held that prior to amendment it was clear that residential house would include multiple residential units. Hence, we hold that learned CIT has erred in distinguishing the Hon'ble Jurisdictional…

Amit Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 28, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4050/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah and Ms. Niyanta Mehta-Ld. ArsFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4050/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Amit Agarwal Pr. CIT-28 बनाम/ C-607, Palm Beach Residency Tower No.06, Vashi Sector-04, Nerul Navi Mumbai-400 703. Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABPA-3472-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Manish Shah and Ms. Niyanta Mehta-Ld. Ars Revenue by : Shri Anadi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai vs. Pooja Bedi, Mumbai

ITA 4708/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Radhika Dholkia (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen(DR)

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

Dr. Asha Mathur, Gujrat vs. Assistant Commissionr of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 769/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 54

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 769/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Dr. Asha Mathur, A.C.I.T., Vs. 16, C/o- Neeraj Kumar Lavania, Circle-1, Sunblossom, Near Ambey School, Jaipur. Opp. Suncity, Manjalpur, Vadodara, Gujrat-390011. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACIPM 6024 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Sharma (CA) jkt…

Velagpudi Krishna Pradad, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 69/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blevelagapudi Krishna Prasad, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), D.No. 32-15-110/4, Flat No.404, Vijayawada. 3Rd Floor, Kutumba Enclave, Moghalarajapuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Aczpv 6726 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.J.P. Anand – Sr.DR

Section 54F

…locks and different towers, as long as they are in same address/location, it does not disentitle the assessee from getting the benefit of section 54F of the Act. In yet another case, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. V.R. Karpagam (2015) 373 ITR 127, held that prior to amendment u/s 54F by Finance Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1.4.2015, with regard to word ‘a’, a residential house include multiple flats/residential units, where under the development agreement assessee was entitled to receive certain built-up area, which got translated into five flats, exemption u/s 54F in respect of five flats in a multi…

ITO, Chennai vs. Gopikrishnan Mohan, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3416/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sreenivasan,IRS

Section 54Section 54F

…d. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 to allow deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) to :- 2 -: the assessee. As per the Revenue judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. V.R. Karpagam 373 ITR 127 relied on by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was distinguishable on facts. 2. Assessee alongwith his mother and brothers had during the relevant previous year sold 2400 sq.ft of land, bearing number 131 at Chinmaya Nagar, Chennai and a flat of 625 sqft bearing No.132 for a sum of ".1,47,00,000/-. Long term capital gains worked out…

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

…e was entitled to claim exemption under section 54 in respect of four residential flats acquired by her. ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 8. Further, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. V.R.Karpagam, 373 ITR 127(Mad), wherein, it was held prior to amendment of section 54F by Finance No.(2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015, with regard to word “a” a residential house would include multiple flats/residential units, thus where under the development agreement assessee was entitled to receive certain built-up area, which got translated into five flats, exemptio…

Shr Peddakota Parvateesam Naidu, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 2571/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2571/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Peddakota Parvateesam Naidu, The Income Tax Officer, 2/297, Jasmin Court, V. Non-Corporate Circle 17(3), Door No.405, Mount Poonamalle Rd, Chennai - 600 034. Kattupakkam Post, Chennai - 600 056. Pan : Aahpp 4986 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT

Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2571/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Peddakota Parvateesam Naidu, The Income Tax Officer, 2/297, Jasmin Court, v. Non-Corporate Circle 17(3), Door No.405, Mount Poonamalle Rd, Chennai - 600 034. Kattupakkam Post, Chennai - 600 056. PAN : AAHPP 4986 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appe…

ITO, Chennai vs. Shema Renny Abraham, Chennai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is treated as dismissed for statistical

ITA 3322/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Gopi Krishna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 54F

…other than the new house. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-10, Chennai. The CIT(A) called for remand reports from the Assessing Officer and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs V R Karpagam (373 ITR 127) allowed the assessee’s claim u/s. 54F. Aggrieved, the revenue filed this appeal with the following grounds: “2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing exemption u/s. 54F in respect investment in all the four flats without appreciating the fact that on the date of transfer the assessee owned more than one residential property. 3. The CIT(A) erred in…

ITO, Chennai vs. M.Mani, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3457/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3457/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. M. Mani, Non Corporate Ward 7(4) No.1, Thirumani Amman Nagar, 2Nd Avenue, Thirumangalam, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West, Chennai 600 040. [Pan Bdipm 2405F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Durai Pandian, Sr.A.RFor Respondent: None

Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3457/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. M. Mani, Non Corporate Ward 7(4) No.1, Thirumani Amman Nagar, 2nd Avenue, Thirumangalam, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West, Chennai 600 040. [PAN BDIPM 2405F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri.…

Sh. Brij Bhushan Tayal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3272/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. AshishFor Respondent: None

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

…g the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee with respect to two flats purchased by the assessee as discussed above. It is pertinent to mention here that the hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT v. Smt. V. R. Karpagam [2015J 373 ITR 127 (Mad), has clearly held that the amendment to provision of section 54F is effective from April 1, 2015, which makes it clear that benefit of section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to the amendment it was clear that a residential house would include multiple residential units. 13 20. Further as per the provisions…

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

…. 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 judgements relied upon by the ld.counsel before us. It is noted that the Karnataka High C…