Dr.Xavier J.Pullikal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

104 DTR 134Reported decision#18614 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2020.

Judgments citing Dr.Xavier J.Pullikal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Smt.Tahera Begum, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 613/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.B.S.Balachandran, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…d and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also not correct. 7.3 Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Dr.Xavier J.Pullikal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (104 DTR 134) where in the Hon’ble Kerala High Court held as under:- “The scheme for depositing capital gain is contemplated under Section 54F(4) and it depends upon when the property of the assessee is sold and when exactly the amounts were invested, whether it was invested in a residential house or otherwise. All these facts have to be considered with refer…

Sri. M N Sheshagiri, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3), Mysore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2203/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 234BSection 251(1)Section 54

…and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also not correct. 7.3 Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Dr.Xavier J.Pullikal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (104 DTR 134) where in the Hon’ble Kerala High Court held as under:- “The scheme for depositing capital gain is contemplated under Section 54F(4) and it depends upon when the property of the assessee is sold and when exactly the amounts were invested, whether it was invested in a residential house or otherwise. All these facts have to be considered with refe…

Sri. Mammen Adeneth Pappy, Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 498/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54F

…unt in the bank account as stipulated and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is also not correct. A similar view was taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. Xavier J. Pullikal vs. DCIT (104 DTR 134). In our opinion, the assessee could make investment in construction of new residential building within three years from the date of transfer of original asset to claim deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Provisions of section 54F are beneficial provisions and are to be considered liberally. 8.4 In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to rem…

The ITO, Cochin vs. Late Sri.K.Sasidharan Rep by Smt. K.P.Sailaja, Cochin

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 56/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…erefore, he is not entitled to the benefit even though he has invested the money in construction is I.T.A. No.56/C/2017 & C.O. No.23/Coch/2017 also not correct. A similar view was taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. Xavier J. Pullikal vs. DCIT (104 DTR 134). In our opinion, the assessee could make investment in construction of new residential building within three years from the date of transfer of original asset to claim deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Provisions of section 54F are beneficial provisions and are to be considered liberally. 8.4 In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to r…

Dr.Xavier J.Pullikal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (104 DTR 134) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax