How many judgments cite ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri?

36 judgments on BharatTax cite ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri (107 ITD 327), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 234A, Section 234B, Section 54F, Section 250, Section 251, Section 253(1)(a).

ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri

107 ITD 327Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#3307 most cited

What is ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri authority for?

Two or more residential units with a common entrance, kitchen, and passage are considered a single residential house for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 54/54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri · Section 54 · Section 54F · single residential house · two flats · common entrance · common kitchen · aggregate consideration · capital gains exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 234A Section 234B Section 54F Section 250 Section 251 Section 253(1)(a)Section 270A

Issues it is cited on

section 54f(1)date of transfer section 54f section 54 section 234a section 23 long term capital gain transfer section 25 section 250 section 143 total income

Judgments citing ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri

MRS. RATAN MAHENDRA JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2022-2023

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT D/R

Section 54Section 54F

…y the revenue, the Tribunal by its order dated 30/4/2010 upheld\nthe findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 4/5/2009. The Tribunal\nalso followed the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the matter of ITO v. Ms.\nSushila M. Jhaveri [2007] 107 ITD 327 (Mum.) to hold that where two flats bearing\nNos.416A and 516A had only one entrance, one kitchen and common passage it has to\nbe considered as one residential house and the respondent was entitled to exemption for\nthe aggregate consideration of Rs.3 crores under Section 54 of the Act.\n(d) We find no fault with the order of the Tribunal which…

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKUL AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2833/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 54F

…rted in (2009) 180 Taxman 4, wherein, similar proposition was reiterated in respect of exemption claimed under section 54 of the Act. He also placed reliance on the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in case of ITO vs Sushila M Jhaveri reported in (2007) 107 ITD 327, wherein identical situation was considered and the claim of deduction under section 54/54F was allowed. The Ld.AR submitted that the intention of the assessee from the beginning was to have a bigger flat. Since the builder originally obtained approval in the form of two independent units, the agreement was entered separately. And subsequently, t…

NAKUL AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 54F

RAVI AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-2, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniravi Agrawal Pr. Cit 101-102, Kanchan Vihar, Indore Vs. Niranjanpur, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aorpa 2161 B Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 263Section 54

…ourt ] 3. CIT v. Gita Duggal [2013] 30 taxmann.com 230/214 Taxman 51 (Delhi) 4. CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma (331 ITR 211) 5. ITO v. Smt. Jyothi K. Mehta (2011) 12 Taxman 440 6. Prem Prakash Bhutani v. ACIT (2009) 31 SOT 38 7. ITO v. Ms. Shushila M. Jhaveri (2007) 107 ITD 327 8. CIT v. Raman Kumar Suri (2013) 81 DTR 33 9. V.R. Karpaam (Smt.) v. ITO (2013) 143 ITD 126 10. ACIT v. Deepak S. Bheda (2012) 52 SOT 327 (Mum.) (Trib.) 11. ACIT v. Leela P. Nanda (2006) 286 ITR (AT) 113 (Mum.) Page 4 of 6 Ravi Agrawal Page 5 of 6 12. CIT vs. Late Khoobchand M. Makhija [TS-706-HC2013(KAR)] 13. Navin Jolly Vs. ITO (ITA No. 320 of…

SHIVKUMAR SANGAPPA SABOJI,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), PANAJI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 160/PAN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand HalbhaviFor Respondent: Smt. Neelima Nadkarni, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

…urchased for re- investment of the corresponding capital gains. 2 ITA.No.160/PAN/2019 Shivkumar Sangappa Saboji, Belgaum. 4. The Learned DR vehemently argued in light of CIT(A)'s detailed discussion that he has rightly followed ITO vs. Sushila Jhaveri [2007] 107 ITD 327 (Mum.) as well as Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) that such deduction claim of multiple flats is not eligible for deduction. 5. All these Revenue’s arguments hardly deserve to be accepted. This is for the precise reason that the hon’ble Karnataka high court happens to be assessee’s jurisdic…

MANOJ TEKRIWAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 24(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4147/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR CIT

Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 40Section 54

…cently, the coordinate bench of Tribunal in Nilufer Sayed vs ITO, [2021] 188 ITD 603 (Mumbai - Trib.), after taking note of aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Courts as well as decision of Special Bench of Tribunal in ITO v. Sushila M. Jhaveri [2007] 107 ITD 327, observed as under: ―4.5 Keeping in view the rules of judicial precedents, the aforesaid view of Hon'ble High Courts shall take precedent over the decision of Tribunal (SB) in Sushila M. Jhaveri (supra) as relied upon by Ld. CIT(A). 4.6 In view of the foregoing & accepting the interpretation of word 'a' as occurring in Section 54 as made by Hon'…

DIPTI NALIN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 17(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3274/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M Balaganeshdipti Nalin Parikh, Crescent Bay T4 Apt. 3103-3104, Near, Parel Bhoiwada, Opp. Cancer Society, Jeerabai Wadai Road, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aabpp5053F ............ Appellant Vs. Ito-17(1)(4), 115, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sonia Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 54Section 54(1)

…ent in one residential house and consequently the assessee would be entitled to exemption u/s 54F.” 3 ITO v. Ms. Shushila The Honorable ITAT, Mumbai held that "However, where more than one unit are M. Jhaveri (2007) purchased which are adjacent to each other 107 ITD 327 (Mum. and are converted into one house for the Trib.) (SB) purpose of residence by having common passage, common kitchen, etc., then, it would be case of investment in one residential house and consequently, the assessee would be entitled to exemption.” 4 ACIT v. Leela P. The Honorable ITAT, Mumbai while dealing Nanda (2006) 286 with the issue t…

VIKRAM VILAS KATRE,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT RANGE-17(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1914/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 23(2)Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC ‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Vikram Vilas Khatre Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 7th Floor Anurag Business Income Tax, Range 17(2), Center, 410/411, Waman Mumbai Tukaram Patil Marg Chembur, Mumbai- 400 071 PAN/GIR No.AADPK5681N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sandesh Desai Revenue by Shri Ashok Koli Date of Hearing 07/10/2021 Date of Pronouncement 24/11 /2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM): This appeal in ITA No.1914/Mum/2020 for A.Y.2011-12 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32,…

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

…of alteration is placed with photographs. In these circumstances, it was contended that 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…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, WARANGAL vs. GYANA KUMARI ROJANALA , WARANGAL

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1779/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. R. Deepak, D.R

Section 2(47)Section 45Section 53ASection 54Section 54F

…ibunal erred in holding that the deduction under section 54 of the Act is allowable for two independent residential flats in the same complex. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri [2007] 107 ITD 327 (Mum.) 10. We see no force in the said contention. As held in D. Ananda Basappa's case (supra) by the Karnataka High Court, the expression "a residential house" in section 54 (1) of the Act has to be understood in a sense that the building should be of residential nature and "a" should not be understood to indicate a singular number and where an…

NILUFER SAYED,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 21(1)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3474/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3474/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Nilufer Sayed Income Tax Officer-25(3)(5) बना A-601, Leela Sagar Mumbai. म/ Yari Road, Versova Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 061. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cgtps-8161-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 25/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Stany Saldanha-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen- Ld. DR

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

…trix, Ld. AO opined that the deduction would be available to the extent of investment made in one flat only since the flats were located totally at two different locations. Reliance was placed on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal (SB) in Sushila M.Jhaveri (2007 107 ITD 327) while taking the said view. Accordingly, the deduction u/s 54 was restricted in the aforesaid manner. The stand of Ld. AO, upon confirmation by Ld. CIT(A), is under challenge before us. Our Adjudication 4.1 We find that the provisions of Sec. 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it stood during AY 2011-12, provides for a deduction 3 Nilufer Sayed…

MR. MAURICE PATRICK DE REBELLO,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1351/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ashok A.Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 53ASection 54

…from the builder as per the JDA. The CIT(A) rejected all the contentions of the assessee. As regards to the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the I.T.Act, the CIT(A) followed the Special Bench order of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Sushila M. Jhaveri [(2007) 107 ITD 327 (Mum.)] and rejected the claim of the assessee that he is entitled to benefit u/s 54 of the I.T.Act for the entire super built-up area received from the builder as per JDA. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has committed…

KRISHNA REDDY PRAVEEN KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2173/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 54Section 54F

…F of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) noted that the Special Bench of the ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of Sushila Jhaveri [107 ITD 327 (Mumbai)] has not been brought before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and therefore could not be considered by the Hon’ble Court at the time of K.G.Rukniniamma’s decision reported in 331 ITR 211 (Kar.). Therefore, the Special Bench decision is directly applicable to the issue under consideration. The learned CIT(A) also relied on the judgment…

LATE SMT. PREMA KUMARI REPRESENTED BY SON & L/H PRAVEEN KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2172/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ramakrishna Kamat, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 54Section 54F

ACIT-25(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VISHAL R. SUCHAK, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2051/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax – 25(3) V. Shri Vishal R. Suchak Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor 302, Hareshitchha Chs Pratyakshkar Bhavan Ns Road – 4, Jvpd Scheme Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Juhu, Vile Parle (W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 056

For Appellant: Shri Vijay ShahFor Respondent: Shri Harkamal Sohi Sandhu

Section 2(14)Section 45Section 54Section 54F

…laws wherein the investment in more than one residential flats have been allowed. However, the Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee referring to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of ITO v. Ms. Sushila Jhaveri [107 ITD 327] wherein it has been held that exemption u/s. 54 & 54F would be allowable in respect of one residential house only and if the assessee has purchased more than one residential house, then the choice would be with assessee for availing the exemption in respect of either of the houses. The Assessing Officer denied the 7 C.O.No. 104/MUM/2019 Shri Vis…

SHRI MAHENDRA HASTIMAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1846/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Mahendra Hastimal Mehta Vs. Ito – 20(2)(2), Mumbai 604, Shantikamla Chsl Room No.212, Piramal Chamber, 2Nd Floor Bba Road, Fawalwadi Chinchpokli Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan/Gir No.Aabpm2932J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…No. 4 being general in nature is dismissed as not pressed. 13. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 4.1. We find that the reliance placed by the ld. CIT(A) on the Special Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Sushila M Jhaveri reported in 107 ITD 327 is not applicable to the facts of the instant case in view of the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court referred to in the order of this Tribunal supra. Moreover, we find that the Section 54 of the Act uses the expression “a residential house’’. This expression has been interpreted by the Courts to include investment being made in residential…

SAPNA MUKESH THAPAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 31(3)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 7062/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, Advocate-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Chaudhury Arun Kumar Singh-Ld.DR

Section 54

…1 Sapna Mukesh Thappar Assessment Year-2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “जी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी संद"प गोसांई, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7062/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) िनधा"रणवष" Sapna Mukesh Thapar Income Tax Officer-31(3)(3) A-103, 1st Floor, Shiv Shivam TWR Room No.408, 4th Floor बनाम नाम नाम/ नाम Oshiwara Adarsh CHS Ltd., C-13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan Vs. Adarsh Nagar, New Lin…

M/S PRAMOD SAHAI BHATNAGAR HUF,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

ITA 517/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54ESection 54F

…her transaction on sale of land and capital gain is not the issue germaine in the present appeal. The AO while restricting the claim to one flat has relied upon the decision of Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in case of ITO vs. M/s Sushila M. Jhavery 107 ITD 327. There is no quarrel on the point that the amendment brought in section 54(1) of the Act is prospective in nature and is applicable from the assessment year 2015-16 onwards and not for the year under consideration. However, the dispute has to be considered on the basis of existing provisions of Section 54 of the I.T. Act. For ready reference th…

ITO, WARD - 2(3), SILIGURI, SILIGURI vs. SMT. SAROJ RANI GUPTA, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1613/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…ssee having not purchased the new flat within the period of two years as prescribed in section 54F was not entitled for exemption under section 54F. He further held by relying on the decision of Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Sushila M. Jhaveri [107 ITD 327] that the two flats purchased by the assessee having separate entrance and in capable of joining together could not be treated as one residential house for claiming exemption under section 54F. He accordingly disallowed the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 54F and by adopting the market value of the land sold by the assessee as d…

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 289/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…by its order dated 30/4/2010 upheld the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax 13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer (Appeals) dated 4/5/2009. The Tribunal also followed the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the matter of ITO v. Ms. Sushila M. Jhaveri [2007] 107 ITD 327 (Mum.) to hold that where two flats bearing Nos. 416A and 516A had only one entrance, one kitchen and common passage it has to be considered as one residential house and the respondent was entitled to exemption for the aggregate consideration of Rs. 3 crores under Section 54 of the Act. (d) We find no fault with the order of the Tribunal which ha…

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2