Muneer Khan v. ITO

41 SOT 504Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#14175 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing Muneer Khan v. ITO

Subhadra Raju, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1035/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…rted the construction before the transfer of property, the assessee cannot be precluded from claiming deduction u/s.54 or u/s.54F of the Act. This view was fortified by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Muneer Khan Vs. ITO in [2010] 41 SOT 504 (Tribunal Hyd]). Being so, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.54F of the Act for the entire cost of the construction incurred ITA No.1035 /Mds/2016 9 by the assessee before one year of transfer of capital asset or 3 years after transfer of capital asset. In other words, expenses incurred by assessee for constru…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Haripriay Jagdish, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1532/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Murali Mohan, ACIT, D.RFor Respondent: Mr.P.S.Prabhakar,C.A

Section 54Section 54F

…erty by borrowing the funds or his own funds, the assessee cannot be precluded from claim of deduction u/s.54 or u/s.54F of the Act. However, our view is fortified by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Muneer Khan Vs. ITO in [2010] 41 SOT 504 (ITAT) [Hyd]) and also recent decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Smt.Usha Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2033/Mds./2016 vide order dated 26.04.2017. Further, the repayment made by the assessee towards housing loan which cannot be construed as part of construction cost met by the assessee. If it is to be excluded and the argument of the counsel of…

R.Upendran (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 1188/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.R

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

…he transfer of property by borrowing the funds or using his own funds, the assessee cannot be precluded from claim deduction u/s.54/54F of the Act. This view is also taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Muneer Khan Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER in 92010) 41 SOT 504 (ITAT Hyd.). Further, it is also noted that the Co-ordinate Bench of Chennai recently in the case of Smt.Usha in ITA No.2033/Mds./2016 vide order dated 26.04.2017 observed herein under:- “ 8.1 We find a force in the argument of the assessee for the reason that the Act does not describe any condition as to the date of commencement of constructio…

A.Rajalakshmi, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 514/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 514/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. A. Rajalakshmi, The Income Tax Officer, New No.12, Old No.3, 3Rd Street, V. Corporate Ward 5(4) Zakaria Colony, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 094. [Pan Agbpr 6558F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ravi, IRS, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 54

…truction within three years was not mandatory and it was necessary that construction should be commenced, it should be proved by the assessee that construction is for residential house. The Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Muneer Khan vs. ITO, 41 SOT 504, had held that assessee may use borrowed funds for construction of new residential property and deduction u/s.54 of the Act denied on the reason that assessee used some fund other than consideration received on transfer of capital asset. Being so, on that reason deduction u/s.54 of the Act cannot be denied. Hence, we remit the entire issue in di…

The ITO-2(2), Indore vs. Smt. Mohan Bai Pokhrana, Indore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 468/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.468/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

…ITO 2(2) Indore v. Smt. Mohan Bai Pokhrana/ I.T.A. No.468/Ind/2013/A.Y. 09-10 Page 1 of 14 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE च""मोहन गग", "या"यक सद"य तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM, AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, AM आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.468/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Mohan Bai Pokhrana 2(2) Indore 225, Textile Clerk Colony Indore "था.ले.सं./PAN: ACCPP 7087N अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Mohd. Javed, Sr. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by D.R. Shri S.N. Agarwal, CA ""यथ" क"…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Suresh Nanda, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross

ITA 4806/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nirupama Kotru, CIT, DR

…ed out of the sale proceeds of the property sold:- (i) Kapil Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (2014) 63 SOT 22 (Delhi-Trib.) (ii) Sunil Sachdeva v. ACIT (2013) 56 SOT 321 (Delhi-Trib.) (iii) ITO v. K.C. Gopalan (1999) 107 Taxman 591 (Ker) (iv) Muneer Khan v. ITO (2010) 41 SOT 504 (Hyd. ITAT) (v) Lalit Marda vs. ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 250 (Kol) (vi) DCIT v. Gaylord Investments & Trading Co. (P) Ltd. (2008) 21 SOT 407 (Mum). 46. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 47. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Since the total expenditure incurred by the assessee for…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Suresh Nanda, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross

ITA 4802/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nirupama Kotru, CIT, DR