CIT v. Zaibunisa Begam

151 ITR 320High Court1985#12189 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act Section 54 of the Income Tax Act

Judgments citing CIT v. Zaibunisa Begam

Suchitra Tandon, Prayagraj vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2 Allahabad, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 10/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 54

…Learned Sr. Department Representative relied on the following case laws: (i) M. Anil V. Income Tax Officer [2008] 10 SOT 655 (Cochin) (ii) Smt. Janki Kishan Hingorani vs. Pr. CIT [2024] 158 taxmann.com 3 (Rajkot-Trib.) (iii) CIT vs. Zaibunnissa Begum [1985] 151 ITR 320 (AP) (iv) Smt. Asha George vs. Income Tax Officer [2013] 351 ITR 123 (Kerala) I.T.A. No.10/Alld/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 6 6. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. The facts of case law, relied by learned Counsel for the assessee, in the case of P. K. Lahri (supra), are distinguishable on facts…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar vs. Sanjay Nemichand Lohade, Ahmednagar

ITA 982/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 54F

…to be treated as land appurtenant. In support of this contention we have relied upon the following decisions: a. CIT v. Natu Hansraj [1976] 105 ITR 43 (guj.); b. Addl. CIT v. Vidya Prakash Talwar [1981] 132 ITR 661 (Delhi); c. CIT v. Zaibunnisa Beguni [1985] 151 ITR 320 (AP); d. CIT v. Kodandas Chanchlomal [1985] 155 ITR 273 (Guj.); e. M. Abdul Sattar v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 642 (Karp); f. CIT v. Kamala Ranganathan [1990] 186 ITR 536 (Mad.); g. CIT v. Mrs. P. Rajasulochana [1994] 210 ITR 423 (Mad.); h. CIT v. Sint. D. Rani [1996] 218 ITR 724 (All.); and 7. In view of above facts and various documents, only because…

Sasikala Raghupathy, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.366/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, New No.60, Old No.100, Central Circle 3(1), Iv Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaafr5481B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ca Jharna B. Harilal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit

For Appellant: Shri CA Jharna B. Harilal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 263Section 54F

…f the property in the modern days. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in treating the entire extent of land of ten grounds and 29 sq. ft. as appurtenant to the main building.—CIT vs. Zaibunnisa Begum (1985) 46 CTR (AP) 48 : (1985) 151 ITR 320 (AP) : TC 22R.289, Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs. Trustees of Dharmamurthy Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Cheity’s Chartties 1988 (4) SCC 260 and Kalipada vs. Tulsidas AIR 1960 Cal 467 relied on” 6.2 We also place reliance in the decision of the following higher Judiciary cited by the Ld.AR:- (i) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited: Wherein it was held t…

Asst CIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Siroya Holding, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1643/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru

Section 22

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos. 1642 & 1643/MUM/2016 (A.Ys: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Asst. Commissioner of Income v. M/s. Siroya Holdings, 72, Tax – 17(3), Room No.137, Bajaj Bhavan, Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai-400 020 PAN No: AAQFS 9329 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri Revenue by : Shri M.V. Rajguru Date of Hearing : 07.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. These two appeals are…

Asst CIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Siroya Holding, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1642/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru

Section 22

DCIT, Chennai vs. Charumathy Seshadri, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 886/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. N.R. Govindarajan, CA &

Section 139Section 54F

…5 acres land and its compound wall etc, on the investment of how much land and buildings should she be given the benefit of deduction u/s 54F has not been examined by the lower authorities at all. In the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs Zaibunnisa Begum,151 ITR 320 AP, the brief facts were as under : “The assessee and her three sisters were the joint owners of house property consisting of a fairly large building and extensive land, each one owning 1/4th share. The building has a built-up area of 17,136 sq. ft. and the total extent of land including the land on which the building stands is 13,029 sq. yards.…

ACIT Circle -12(3), Mumbai vs. Siroya Holdings, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6563/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri D. Karunakara Rao

For Appellant: Shri Akhilendra Yadav, DRFor Respondent: Shri B.V. Jhaveri

Section 22

…by the AO as „income from other sources‟ and denied the deduction allowed u/s 24(a) of the Act in this regard. On these facts, CIT (A) analyzed and applied the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Zaibunisa Begam [ 1985] 151 ITR 320 (AP) and the judgment of the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Binny Ltd vs. ACWT [2010] 324 ITR 34 (Mad), which are relevant for explaining the meaning of the expression “land appurtenant thereto”. In addition, he relied on certain other decisions of the Tribunal also. CIT (A) also analyzed the provisions of section 22 of the Act which re…

ITO, Chennai vs. S. Lakshmanan, Chennai

In the result, Department appeal is dismissed

ITA 2103/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2103/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri S. Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, 99-46, C-3, Ashok Amoga Business Ward Iv(1), V. Apartments, 1St Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaupl 4308 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. J. Radhakrishnan, Advocate

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

…conditions and also took the possession of the property on 30.05.2012 and there is no dispute of possession by the A.O. in the assessment order. Further, the Ld. D.R. relied on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Smt. Zaibunisa Begum (1985) 151 ITR 320, where Lordships have considered the issue in respect of transfer of building and land appurtenant, and the issue is on different facts where the construction was in a smaller area compared to the open land left on which the building is constructed. The same cannot be applied to the present case, as the assessee in toto has sold the land along…