K.G. Vyas v. Seventh ITO (16 ITD 195)

PARTAP SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD

ITA 1858/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54F

…on u/s 54F. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following judgments: - Judgment of Hon’ble Andhra High Court dated 20.12.2012 in ITTA no. 410 of 2012 -The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Syed Ali Adil ; - K.G. Vyas v. Seventh Income-Tax Officer [1986] 16 ITD 195 (MUM); - Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 21.02.2013 in ITA 1237/2011 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gita Duggal - Judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 29.08.2016 in W.P. No. 28409 of 2015 - Shri G. Chinnadurai v. ITO 3.1 Thus, we are inclined to sustain ground no. 1 in favour of the assessee. 4. As regards ground no. 2 we find t…

C.R.PARTHIBAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee it is dismissed

ITA 1023/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1023/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopalakrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 47Section 54

…h, and accordingly, I thought I could retain more than one flat in the same building and all such flat may be considered to be purchase or construction of a residential house, even though such flats are on different floors. In K.G. Vyas vs. Seventh ITO (1986) 16 ITD 195 (Bom-Trib.), the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal held it to be in order where four flats were purchased in the same building on two different floors because of the large size of the family. In CIT vs. Smt. Sunita Aggarwal (2007) 13 (I) ITCL 66 (Del-HC), in this case, the Assesseesold his residential house property and purchased four portions of a pro…

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

…at even though flats are located at different floors, when they could be combined, it should be construed as a single residential accommodation only; that the said view is supported by the decisions of the Tribunal reported in K. G. Vyas v. Seventh ITO [1986] 16 ITD 195 (Bom.), ITO v. P. C. Ramakrishna, (HUF) [2007] 108 ITD 251 (Chennai) and Prem Prakash Bhutani v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 31 SOT 38 (Delhi) (URO) ITA no. 1779/Hyd/2019 Gyana Kumari Rojanala, Warangal AY 2016-17 7. Challenging the same, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 8. Heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Ta…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ए,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment 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 "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Nandkishor Agrawal राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri Satishchandra Rajore…

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. CITY LIFE DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6208/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. City Life Developers, Acit-25(1), 5Th C-11, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Agarwal Golden Chamber, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Bkc, Bandra – East, Vs. Road, Mumbai - 51 Off New Link Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aadfc1252B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 O/O. Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. City Life Developers, 5Th Floor, Agarwal Golden Income Tax 25(1), Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Chamber, Room No.202, 2Nd Floor, Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Bandra (East) Off New Link Road, Mumbai – 400 051 Andheri-West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aadfc1252B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Aditya Ajgaonkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, D.R

Section 263

…the purpose of registration it is divided into parts so that the area does not exceed 1000 sq.ft. Similarly flat No.702 & 802 are just one above the other and accordingly for the purpose of deduction is considered as one units as held in the case of K.G. Vyas 16 ITD 195 (Mumbai Tribunal) and 107 ITRD 321 (Mumbai Tribunal). On these counts also the contention of the assessee that the adjoining flats are separate units does not hold good as per the judgment of Mumbai Tribunal. Accordingly the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) on the ground of excessive area constructed in respect of residential unit is also violated…

CITY LIFE DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. CIT 25, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6116/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. City Life Developers, Acit-25(1), 5Th C-11, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Agarwal Golden Chamber, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Bkc, Bandra – East, Vs. Road, Mumbai - 51 Off New Link Road, Andheri-West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aadfc1252B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 O/O. Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. City Life Developers, 5Th Floor, Agarwal Golden Income Tax 25(1), Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Chamber, Room No.202, 2Nd Floor, Plot No.13/A, Fun Republic Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Road, Bandra (East) Off New Link Road, Mumbai – 400 051 Andheri-West, Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aadfc1252B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Aditya Ajgaonkar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, D.R

Section 263

…the purpose of registration it is divided into parts so that the area does not exceed 1000 sq.ft. Similarly flat No.702 & 802 are just one above the other and accordingly for the purpose of deduction is considered as one units as held in the case of K.G. Vyas 16 ITD 195 (Mumbai Tribunal) and 107 ITRD 321 (Mumbai Tribunal). On these counts also the contention of the assessee that the adjoining flats are separate units does not hold good as per the judgment of Mumbai Tribunal. Accordingly the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) on the ground of excessive area constructed in respect of residential unit is also violated…

GIRIJA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 35 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 283/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhsmt. Girija Singh Ito-35(1)-4, 303, Ebony, Tower No.1, C-12, Bandra The Orchard Residency, 146, Mumbai. Vs. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086 Pan: Abgps5477E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag (AR)For Respondent: Mrs. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54

…AO was directed to re-compute the exemption u/s 54F by treating both the units as comprising of (A residential house for this purpose). The contention and the reliance made by assessee were not accepted by AO. On relying upon the decision of K.G. Vyas v/s ITO 16 ITD 195 (Bom Trib.) wherein it was held that where the assessee buys more than one flat in the same building for accommodating a large family, maintaining a common kitchen and common ration card and qualify for eligible for deduction and further on the decision of Mrs. Gulshanbanoo R. Mukhi v/s JCIT 83 ITD 649 (Mum Trib.) wherein it was held that statute…

VISHAL DUTT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 878/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 878/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Vishal Dutt, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 205, B-Wing, Big Splash, – 22(3)(4), V. Sector – 17,Vashi, 3 Rd Floor, Tower No. 6, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagpd 1553 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-(DR)

Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…house” which could be equivalent to word ‘any’: In his support the assessee relied upon the following judicial decisions:- i) CIT v. Smt. K.G. Rukuminiamma, (2011)196 Taxman 87 (Kar) ii) CIT v. Gita Duggal (2013)30 taxmann.com 230 (Delhi HC) iii) K.G. Vyas, 16 ITD 195(Bom-Trib) iv) Shiv Narayan Choudhari, (1981)108 ITR 104 (All) v) B.B. Sarkar, 132 ITR 150 (Cal) vi) Col. H.H. Sir Harinder Singh, 83 ITR 416 vii) Fulwanti C. Rathod v. ITO, Mumbai Tribunal. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee is claiming benefit u/s 54F of the Act in respect of two independent residential house situated at different locations,…

K.G. Vyas v. Seventh ITO

Sections most often in play

Judgments citing K.G. Vyas v. Seventh ITO