CIT vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153 (Del.), CIT vs P R Sehshadri 329 ITR 377 (Karn.), CIT v. Rajiv Shukla

360 ITR 575High Court2014#24665 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153 (Del.), CIT vs P R Sehshadri 329 ITR 377 (Karn.), CIT v. Rajiv Shukla

Manish Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Late Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR

Section 160Section 160(1)(i)Section 161(1)Section 163Section 2(14)Section 48Section 54F

…ny interest therein or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever by way of an agreement or otherwise. Explanation-2 has been inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect w.e.f. 01.04.1962. j) In CIT vs Ashok Kumar Ralhan (2014) 360 ITR 575 (Del), Hon'ble Delhi High Court have held that the word “construction” for the purpose of section 54F has to be given a realistic practical and pragmatic meaning keeping in mind the object and purpose of the provision. Section 54F is a beneficial provision as a capital asset, which is sold is replaced by a new capital asset in the form of a resid…

Rustom Homi Vakil, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 4450/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4450/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Rustom Homi Vakil Acit 12(3) बनाम/ Flat No 27, Aaykar Bhawan V. 107,Maison Belvedre New Marine Lines Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aabpv1053F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Mahesh C. MathurFor Respondent: Mr. B S Bist, Sr. DR

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

…oy v. DCIT (2007) 106 ITD 167(Mum.Trib.) 3. B B Sarkar v. CIT (1981)132 ITR 150 (Cal. HC). 4. Mrs Sonia Gulati v. ITO (2001) 115 taxman 232 (Mum)(Mag.)(Trib.) 5. Mrs. Gulshanbanoo R Mukhi v. JCIT (2002) 83 ITD 649 (Mum. Trib.) 6. Sh. Ashok Kumar Ralhan v. CIT 360 ITR 575 Del. HC 7. G Shiv Ram Krishna v. DCIT in ITA no. 755/Hyd/2013 dated 20-12- 2013 9 Ld. DR relied upon the orders of CIT(A) and drew our attention to the details of expenditure of Rs.14.26 lacs incurred by the assessee to contend that these expenses are merely renovation expenses which cannot be allowed by way of benefit u/s. 54 of the Act. ITA…

ITO 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5798/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Ward-13(2)(2), Flat No.3804, 38Th Floor, बनाम/ R. No.477, 4Th Floor, Shreepati Arcade, A-Wing, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A.K.Marg, Nana Chowk, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400036 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadpg0200D

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…vs S Uday kumar (2012) 345 ITR 389 (Karnataka), CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharyaji (2012) 342 ITR 74 (Guwahati ) and CIT vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153 (Del.), CIT vs P R Sehshadri 329 ITR 377 (Karn.), CIT vs Rajiv Shukla 334 ITR 138(Del.), CIT vs Ashok Kumar Rallhan 360 ITR 575 (Del.) supports our view. There is categorical finding in the impugned order that the assessee sold the assessee on 251/12/2008 and utilized the same for purchase of new asset on 15/12/2009 i.e. before date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act (which was filed on 05/02/2010), therefore, we find no infirmity, in the conclusion o…