Mrs. Meera Jacob v. ITO (313 ITR 411)

KUNDOLY KRISHNANKUTTY SUNIL,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(1), THRISSUR

ITA 547/COCH/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2016-2017

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 80C

…54F of the Act in respect of the aforesaid addition cost by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Pushpa vs. Income tax Officer [2013] 255 CTR 222 (Kerala)[22-08-2012] and Mrs. Meera Jacob vs. Income-tax Officer [2009] 313 ITR 411 (Kerala)[09-06-2008]. On perusal of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court we find that it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that deduction under Section 54F of the Act would be available only in case of purchaser of new residential unit and not for the purpose of modification/renovation of the existing residential house.…

SHREYA SINGHVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshreya Singhvi, 80, Kiran Marg, Suraj Nagar Jaipur 302 006 Pan No.: Agmps 2639D ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sogani, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT- Ld. DR

Section 250Section 45Section 54F

…e and all those documents revealed that there was only an extension of old building. In the instant case, there was no proof for the construction of the residential houses and, hence, the assessee was not entitled to relief under section 54F. [Para 9] [2009] 313 ITR 411 (Ker.) Mrs. Meera Jacob vs. Income-tax Officer Section 54F does not provide for exemption on investment in renovation or modification of an existing house. On the other hand, construction of a house only qualifies for exemption on the investment. Even addition of a floor of a self-contained type to the existing house would have qualified for exe…

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 210/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…labchand Gupta ITA no.210/Nag./2023 pronouncements have held that the expenses incurred on renovation or extention of the house already in existence, then it does not qualify for the benefits of Section 54F. The decision in the case of Mrs Meera Jacob vs ITO 313 ITR 411 (Kerala) is applicable in thi regard as is the decision in the case of ACIT vs TN Gopal (2009) 121 ITD 352 (Chennai ITAT). 4.15 Hence in this case assessee cannot claim in FY 2016-17, the benefit intended by the legislature on the construction which started way back in FY 2013-14. 4.16 The assessee e cannot make claim of double deduction towards…

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 308/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR

Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [PAN : APUPC4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant b…

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 309/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR

Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [PAN : APUPC4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant b…

SRI. K. RAJANNA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 928/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.928/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Sri K. Rajanna, Hoovadigara Beedhi, Hosuru Bagilu, Anekal Town, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Dist. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 4.9.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Bangalore Dt.24.12.2013 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 On 2.4.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.13,43,590 From Business & Long Term Capital Gains (‘Ltcg’). The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act'). The Assessing Officer Observed That On Verification Of The Return Of Income, It Was Seen That The Assessee Was In Receipt Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.3,38,00,000 From Sale Of 12 Flats Received From The Developer Consequent To A Joint Development Agreement (‘Jda’)

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54

…,000 on account of cost of improvement towards the flat retained by the assessee. It is contended by the learned Authorised Representative that, the learned CIT (Appeals), relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Meera Jacob V ITO (2009) 313 ITR 411 (Ker), disallowed the exemption of Rs.5 lakhs under Section 54F of the Act, allowed by the Assessing Officer, holding that the cost of improvement claimed by the assessee and allowed by the Assessing Officer could not be considered as cost of improvement. It is contended that this action of the learned CIT (Appeals) resulted in the enhancement of…

Mrs. Meera Jacob v. ITO

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on