D.P. Mehta v. CIT

251 ITR 529High Court2001#13854 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing D.P. Mehta v. CIT

Suja Ganessan, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 10(4), Chennai

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

ITA 250/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita, JCIT

Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ 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.250/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mrs. Suja Ganesan, Flat No.4A, Pettucola Towers, The Income Tax Officer, P.H. Road, Kilpauk, v. Non Corporate Ward - 10(4), Chennai - 600 010. Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AMTPS 9756 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate…

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

…the entire net consideration within the stipulated period. The said view taken consistently by the Tribunal has been applied in these cases also. The Tribunal has distinguished the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of D.P. Mehta v. CIT reported in [2001] 251 ITR 529 , relied on by the Revenue in their favour to non-suit the assessees for exemption. In our view, the Tribunal has distinguished the same rightly because in the cited case, there was a factual finding by the authorities that the assessee himself has admitted that the construction put up was only a garage and service quarters and it was not fit eno…

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

…the entire net consideration within the stipulated period. The said view taken consistently by the Tribunal has been applied in these cases also. The Tribunal has distinguished of D.P. the Delhi High Court judgment in the case Mehta v. CIT reported in [2001] 251 ITR 529 , relied on by the Revenue in their favour to non-suit the assessees for exemption. In our view, the Tribunal has distinguished the same rightly because in the cited case, there was a factual finding by the authorities that the assessee himself has admitted that the construction put up was only a garage and service quarters and it was not fit eno…

ITO 26(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Gope G. Shahani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6895/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish T. PunjabiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR

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

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…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Shri Bharatbhai Madhavlal Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1670/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri A. N. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…lal Patel net consideration within the stipulated period. The said view taken consistently by the Tribunal has been applied in these cases also. The Tribunal has distinguished the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of D. P. Mehta v. CIT reported in [2001] 251 ITR 529 , relied on by the Revenue in their favour to non- suit the assessees for exemption. In our view, the Tribunal has distinguished the same rightly because in the cited case, there was a factual finding by the authorities that the assessee himself has admitted that the construction put up was only a garage and service quarters and it was not fit en…

Smt. Selvi Venkatasubramanya vs. ITO

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

ITA 1052/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsmt.Selvi Venkatasubramani, No.3, 12Th Cross, 6Th Main, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560003. … Appellant Pan: Aavpv4348P Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 9(4), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Ramesha, JCIT(DR)

Section 54Section 54F

…much as it is a dilapidated structure with AC sheet having no doors nor windows under the facts of the Appellant's case 6. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mehta D.P. v CIT(2001) 251 ITR 529(Del) cited by the Appellant in support of her contention that an uninhabitable building was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in giving direction to the A.O. in respect of an amount of Rs.3,98,318/- under the facts of the Appellant's case. The direction is bad as no information was sought from the Appellan…