Dr. Smt. P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT

23 Taxmann.com 299High Court2012#4433 most cited

What is Dr. Smt. P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT authority for?

An assessee can claim the benefit of investment in multiple flats under Section 54F of the Act, as there is no inhibition against claiming such benefit for multiple properties purchased for residential purposes. Fractional ownership does not equate to exclusive ownership for the purpose of denying exemption under Section 54F.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Dr. Smt. P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT · Section 54F · Section 54F(1) · exemption · long-term capital asset · investment · residential house · fractional ownership · multiple flats · exclusive ownership

Also reported as

209 Taxmann 628

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 263Section 68Section 115BBESection 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 54f(1)long-term capital assetsection 54fdate of transfersection 54section 32section 115jsection 234blong term capital gainsalaryincome from other sourcessection 115

Judgments citing Dr. Smt. P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT

Hemant Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-20(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4566/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Hemant Shah Acit-20(1), Mumbai 10, Oomed Sadan 58, Sion, Mumbai 400 022 Vs Pan : Aadps2405E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI Before Shri R.C. Sharma (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM) Hemant Shah ACIT-20(1), Mumbai 10, Oomed Sadan 58, Sion, Mumbai 400 022 Vs PAN : AADPS2405E APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Paresh Vakharia Respondent by Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Sr DR & R. Bhoopati Sr DR Date of hearing 13.12.2019 Date of pronouncement 25.02.2020 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM : 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income –tax- 32 [‘ld.CIT(A)’], Mumbai for assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grou…

The ITO-19(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sunitha R. Ashok, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5108/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 19(3)(4) V. Smt Sunitha R. Ashok 2Nd Matru Mandir, Floor, B-30, Mayfair Garden, Room No. 210, Tardeo Road, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hills, Mumbai – 400007 Mumbai – 400 006

For Appellant: Shri K.K. LalkakaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(4) v. Smt Sunitha R. Ashok 2nd Matru Mandir, Floor, B-30, Mayfair Garden, Room No. 210, Tardeo Road, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hills, Mumbai – 400007 Mumbai – 400 006 PAN NO: ADEPA 8529 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.K. Lalkaka Department by : Shri V. Vidhyadhar Date of Hearing : 05.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order o…

Pramod Sharma, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 35(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stood dismissed

ITA 6440/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal/For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6440/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Pramod Sharma बिाम/ ACIT-35(2) Flat No. 12A01, Interface Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Heights, 13 th Floor, „C‟ Wing, Bandra Kurla Road, v. Off Link Road, Malad(West), Bandra (E) Mumbai-400064 Mumbai 400051 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AMYPS6428E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri K. Gopal/ Ms. Neha Paranjpe Revenue by : Shri Rajat Mit…

DCIT 5(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Dawood Abdulhussain Gandhi, Mumbai

ITA 3788/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 3788/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Shri Dawood Abdulhussain बिधम/ Tax-5(2)(2), Room No. 571, Gandhi, 102, Lohar Chawl, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai 400002. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabpg4337K (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…P a g e | 1 DCIT Vs. Shri Dawood Abdulhussain Gandhi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA Nos. 3788/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Shri Dawood Abdulhussain बिधम/ Tax-5(2)(2), Room No. 571, Gandhi, 102, Lohar Chawl, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai 400002. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AABPG4337K (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R सुनवाई क…

Smt. Bhavna Hitesh Rawal, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2743/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 554F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2013-14 Smt. Bhavna Hitesh The ITO, Rawal, A-501, Ward-5(1)(1), Pratishtha Apartment, Vs Ahmedbad Nr. Bodakdev Fire (Respondent) Station, J.B. Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad PAN: ACEPR7744N (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Sunil Talati, A.R. Date of hearing : 04-12-2017 Date of pronouncement : 30-01-2018 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, arises from orde…

Ram Mohan Rai, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6612/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 234BSection 54

…Ram Mohan Rai ACIT 6612/Del/2016 AY 2013-14 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―F‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ram Mohan Rai, Vs. ACIT, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAAPR0728C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv Sh. Ashish Chadha, CA Revenue by: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/04/2017 Date of pronouncement 10/04/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. The assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A)-11, prefers this appeal, New Delhi dated 21.03.2016 for the Assessment…

Commissioner of Income Tax –V vs. Kapil Nagpal

ITA/609/2014HC Delhi11 Sept 2015
Section 143Section 260Section 271Section 54Section 54F

…fferent connotation in different statutes.” It was concluded that the Tribunal in that case “went wrong in holding that for the purpose of applicability of Section 54, registration of document is imperative.” In Dr. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT (2012) 252 CTR 336 the Assessee and her husband were co-owners to the extent of 50% share in a building that had a clinic and a residential house. It was held that since the entire property was not an exclusive residential property and 50% of the ownership was with reference to the clinic on the ground floor, the harshness of the proviso to Section 54 F cannot…