Mahaveer Prasad Gupta v. CIT

5 SOT 355Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#25155 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing Mahaveer Prasad Gupta v. CIT

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…t case, even the basement was capable of being used as residence. The fact that the assessee did not actually use the same for his residence will not disentitle him to the claim of exemption u/s 5417 6. As held in case of Mahaveer Prasad Gupta vs. CIT (2006) 5 SOT 355 (Del), the use of the property is not the relevant criterion to consider the eligibility of section 54F benefit. The contention of improving the state of habitability is a subjective matter. The Id. AO did not spell out the reasons to consider the same as inhabitable. In inspection report also, there are general and vague statement that it appears…

Sampat Lal Lodha, Nathdwara vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rajsamand

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1/JODH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

…t case, even the basement was capable of being used as residence. The fact that the assessee did not actually use the same for his residence will not disentitle him to the claim of exemption u/s 5417 6. As held in case of Mahaveer Prasad Gupta vs. CIT (2006) 5 SOT 355 (Del), the use of the property is not the relevant criterion to consider the eligibility of section 54F benefit. The contention of improving the state of habitability is a subjective matter. The Id. AO did not spell out the reasons to consider the same as inhabitable. In inspection report also, there are general and vague statement that it appears…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Smt. Kulwant Kaur, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 678/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 54

…hermore, A.O’s contention that the appellant has not taken permission to construct residential property on the agricultural land is ITA 678/JP/2017 8 ACIT Vs. Smt. Kulwant Kaur also not tenable as is decided in the case of Mahavir Prasad Gupta vs. CIT [20061 5 SOT 355 (Delhi) that even a farmhouse can be a residential house and investment is eligible for benefit of section 54F of the IT Act. Thus there is no prohibition regarding construction of a residential house on agriculture land. CBDT Cir. No. 667 dt. 18.10.1993 (204 ITR (St) 103) has clarified that for the purpose of computing exemption u/s. 54 or 54F, th…

Mahaveer Prasad Gupta v. CIT (5 SOT 355) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax