JUGALKISHOR SHAH v. ACIT

401 ITR 129Reported decision2018#20783 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing JUGALKISHOR SHAH v. ACIT

Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepathi Represented by Power of Attorney Holder, N. Satyaramanujamm, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer(International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed

ITA 178/VIZ/2018[2010-2011]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder (International Taxation) Smt. N.Satyaramanujam Visakhapatnam Flat No.403, Dhanna Apartments Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Atcpa6413A] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 54Section 54F

…nt that amendment incorporated in Section 54F(1) of the Act is prospective in nature. Similar view has been taken in Leena Jugalkishor Shah v. Asstt, CIT , [2016] 72 taxmann.com 185/[2017] 392 ITR 18 (Guj), Dipankar Mohan Ghosh, in re [2018 89 taxmann.com 218/401 ITR 129 (AAR - New Delhi) and CIT v. Anurag Pandit in I.T.A.No.1169/2018 dated 14-5-2019 (New Del). We concur with the view taken by Delhi, Gujarat and Madras High Courts. 12 ITA No.178/Viz/2018, A.Y.2010-11 Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi, Visakhapatnam In view of preceding analysis, the substantial question of law framed by this court is answered i…

Commissioner of vs. Mr Vinay Mishra

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

ITA/75/2013HC Karnataka31 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54(1)Section 54F

…y Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 is prospective in nature and the aforesaid issue is no longer res integra and has been answered in favour of the assessee in cases of ‘LEENA JUGALKISHOR SHAH VS. ACIT’, 392 ITR 18 (GUJ), ‘DIPANKAR MOHAN GHOSH IN RE’, 401 ITR 129 (AAR-NEW DEL) AND ‘CIT VS. ANURAG PANDIT IN I.T.A.NO.1169/2018 DATED 14.05.2019 (NEW DEL). Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 7 TAX VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD.’, (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the side…

M/S. Harvinder Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 728/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14]

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 54Section 54F

…since the A.Y under consideration is A.Y 2013-14, the said amendment is not applicable for the year under consideration. The ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi in the case of Mohan Ghosh 401 ITR 129 [AAR, New Delhi] and also on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Anurag Pandit ITA No. 4159/DEL/2016 order dated 23.05.2018. 8. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A). It is the say of the ld. DR that the amendment is clear and unambiguous and no deduction can be allowed to the assessee as per…

Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5799/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Piyush ChhajjedFor Respondent: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR)
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…nounced the said order and deduction u/s 54F was allowed for making investment in a residential property situated outside India. The assessee also relied upon the ruling passed by Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi in Dipankar Mohan Ghosh, in re. (2018) 401 ITR 129(AAR-New Delhi), which AAR held in favour of the tax-payer on this issue. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Mr. Nishant Lalit Jadhav, ITA no. 6883/Mum/2014 , order dated 26.04.2017 for assessment year 2011-12, ITAT Chennai Bench decision in ITO (International Taxation- 2(1)), Chennai v. Mrs. Saroja…

JUGALKISHOR SHAH v. ACIT (401 ITR 129) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax