CIT vs. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi 389 ITR 366 (Kar) Pr. CIT v. C. Gopalaswamy

126 DTR 436High Court2015#22281 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT vs. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi 389 ITR 366 (Kar) Pr. CIT v. C. Gopalaswamy

A.Rajalakshmi, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 514/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 514/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. A. Rajalakshmi, The Income Tax Officer, New No.12, Old No.3, 3Rd Street, V. Corporate Ward 5(4) Zakaria Colony, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 094. [Pan Agbpr 6558F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 54

…ntention of the ld. Departmental Representative is that assessee has not appropriated towards construction of new residential house as it was not completed. In our opinion as held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. V.S. Shantha Kumari 126 DTR 436 completion of construction within three years was not mandatory and it was necessary that construction should be commenced, it should be proved by the assessee that construction is for residential house. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Muneer Khan vs. ITO, 41 SOT 504, had held that assessee may use borrowed funds for constru…

Mr.Aslam Zackria Sait, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 453/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CA and Shri. Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 54

…he assessee Page 11 of 16 had invested the consideration within the stipulated period and reliance was placed on the following decisions: CIT vs. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi 389 ITR 366 (Kar) Pr. CIT vs. C. Gopalaswamy, 384 ITR 307 (Kar) CIT vs. B S Shanthakumari, 126 DTR 436 (Kar) 6. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 596 in support of the proposition that the exemption under section 54 cannot be denied merely for the reason that the developer did not utilise the amount invested by the appellant. On other hand, the learned Standing Counsel vehemently contended that the…

Rajpal Trehan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6113/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta &For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 133B(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 54Section 54F

…4 ITR 106 (MP) " Smt. Rajneet Sandhu Vs DCIT (2010) 133 TTJ 64 (Chd.) " Narsimha Raju Rudra Rao Vs ACIT 35 Taxman 90 (Hyd. Trib.) " Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs CIT 196 ITR 188 (SC) " Satish Chandra Gupta Vs AO 54 ITD 508 (Del. Trib.) " CIT Vs Smt. B. B. Shanthakumari 126 DTR 436 (Kar.) " Smt. Ranjneet Sandhu Vs DCIT 133 TTJ 64 (Chd.) " Narashimha Raju Rudra Raju Vs ACIT 35 Taxman 90 (Hyd. Trib.) " Satish Chandra Gupta Vs AO 54 ITD 508 (Del. Trib.) 10. In his rival submissions the ld. DR reiterated the observations made by the authorities below in their respective orders and further submitted that as per the architect rep…