Karnataka in CIT v. P.R. Seshadri

329 ITR 377High Court#24511 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing Karnataka in CIT v. P.R. Seshadri

Smt.Girija Varadaraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 768/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 234Section 54F

…ction.54F of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The learned CIT [A] ought to have appreciated that the judgement of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court Commissioner of Income tax Vs. K.Ramachandra Rao 56 Taxmann, 163(Karnataka), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.R.Seshadri 329 ITR 377 ( Karnataka) retied upon in the appellate order passed actually supports the stand of the appellant for the claim of deduction U/s.54F of Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus the assessment made without giving deduction U/s.54F deserves to be vacated. 5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies itself…

Ganesh Chawla, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 452/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Podar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena

Section 54F

…Thus, the ld. AR has contended that the once the assessee established that a new house was constructed then the deduction u/s 54F is allowable. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decision as under:- • CIT & anr. Vs. P.R. Seshadri 329 ITR 377 • CIT vs. P.V. Narasimhan 181 ITR 101 • CIT vs. V. Natarajan 287 ITR 271 • CIT vs. Kamal Wahal 351 ITR 0004 • Shri Laxmi Narayan vs. CIT in ITA No. 20/2016 Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal (supra) has held that there is nothing in section 6 Sh. Genesh Chawla vs. ACIT 54F to show tha…

ITO 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5798/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Ward-13(2)(2), Flat No.3804, 38Th Floor, बनाम/ R. No.477, 4Th Floor, Shreepati Arcade, A-Wing, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A.K.Marg, Nana Chowk, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400036 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadpg0200D

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…isen. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Sardar Mal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Madras), CIT vs S Uday kumar (2012) 345 ITR 389 (Karnataka), CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharyaji (2012) 342 ITR 74 (Guwahati ) and CIT vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153 (Del.), CIT vs P R Sehshadri 329 ITR 377 (Karn.), CIT vs Rajiv Shukla 334 ITR 138(Del.), CIT vs Ashok Kumar Rallhan 360 ITR 575 (Del.) supports our view. There is categorical finding in the impugned order that the assessee sold the assessee on 251/12/2008 and utilized the same for purchase of new asset on 15/12/2009 i.e. before date of furnishing of return of income u/s 139(4) of the Ac…