Income Tax vs. Joe B. Fernandes (11) (2004) 091 ITD 0053 (Bang. Trib) Anand Basappa v. Income Tax Officer. (12)

179 ITD 265Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2019#19578 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 147 Section 148 Section 148A Section 234A Section 234B

Judgments citing Income Tax vs. Joe B. Fernandes (11) (2004) 091 ITD 0053 (Bang. Trib) Anand Basappa v. Income Tax Officer. (12)

Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore, Mahalkshmipuram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Intl, Taxation 1(2) Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

…nvested sale consideration received on transfer of Capital Asset in purchasing a new residential property in name of his married widowed daughter and the exemption was allowed to the assessee. (h) Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi v. ITO [2019] 110 taxmann.com 120/179 ITD 265 (Pune - Trib.)In order to claim deduction under section 54F, new residential house need not be purchased by assessee in his own name or exclusively in his name. 13. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT v. Kamal Wahal [2013] 30 taxmann.com 34/214 Taxman 287/351 ITR 4 and CIT v. Ravinder Kumar Arora…

Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Incom Tax(OSD), Nagpur

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No. 368/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak, 254, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur. ……………. Appellant PAN – AAQPN4090H v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, ……………. Respondent (OSD), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri M.G.Moryani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 27/06/2024 Date of Order – 27/06/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 18/10/…

Suresh Chand Surana, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 25/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54ESection 54F

…no embargo has been laid down in Section 54F of the Act to artificially restrict the deduction only with reference to one unit as held in ITO vs. Sushila M. Jhaveri (2007) 107 ITD 321 (Mum) (SB) and followed thereafter in Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi vs 1TO (2019) 179 ITD 265 (Pune), Dinanath Badrinath Chhabra vs ITO in ITA no. 7111/Mum/2012, ITO (Intl. Tax) vs Kavita Gupta (2018) 52 CCH 308 (Mum. Trib.) & ACIT vs Sanjay B. Pahadia (2017) 49 CCI1 7 (Mum. Trib.). 5.2 It was further pointed out that issue, in any case, is debatable and the AO has taken a view plausible in law and therefore, the jurisdiction under s.263…

Anu Kohli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1477/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri D.V.Anjaneyulu & SatyaFor Respondent: Sri Kiran Katta, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 54Section 54F

…f balance amount in capital gain account was only a technical default and also that the due date of filing u/s 139(1) has to be construed as date of filing returns u/s 139(4) of the Act. Further, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Pune reported in (2019) 179 ITD 265 Pune in the case of Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi vs. ITO has also confirmed this view. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act in respect of all the expenses incurred by her before the date of filing her return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act. Since the assessee has claimed to have invest…