Prakash v. ITO

173 Taxmann 311High Court2008#2253 most cited
52

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Prakash v. ITO · Section 54F · Section 54 · capital gains deduction · eligibility for exemption · investment for 54F · decision against assessee · denial of deduction · Section 24(b) · Section 80C

Also reported as

312 ITR 40173 Taxmann.com 311

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 148Section 54

Issues it is cited on

section 90aunexplained jewellerysection 24(b)under-reporting of incomesection 80cforeign tax creditroyalty incomesection 54fwithholding taxdisallowance of interest expendituresection 139(4)section 54

Judgments citing Prakash v. ITO

VITHIYA MURALI,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3333/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.3333/Chny/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vithiya Murali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.51, Subramaniyampuram, Ward-1, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-609 001. [Pan: Aohpv4251M]

For Appellant: Mr.Abhishek Murali, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यागयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ITA Nos.3333/Chny/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vithiya Murali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.51, Subramaniyampuram, Ward-1, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-609 001. [PAN: AOHPV4251M] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.Abhishek Murali, C.A. प…

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

ITA 666/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…1 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Mr. Sambhaji Maruti The Income Tax Officer, Katkar, S.No.26/6, Ward – 6 (1), PMT Bldg., Singhad Road, Wadgaon Shankar Sheth Road, vs (Bk), PUNE - 411 051 Swargate, PUNE – 411 037. Maharashtra.PAN AEZPK8714Q Maharashtra. (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent/Appellant) For Assessee : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani For Revenue : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR Date of…

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 645/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

…1 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Mr. Sambhaji Maruti The Income Tax Officer, Katkar, S.No.26/6, Ward – 6 (1), PMT Bldg., Singhad Road, Wadgaon Shankar Sheth Road, vs (Bk), PUNE - 411 051 Swargate, PUNE – 411 037. Maharashtra.PAN AEZPK8714Q Maharashtra. (Appellant/Cross Objector) (Respondent/Appellant) For Assessee : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani For Revenue : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR Date of…

ANJAPPAN RANGASMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 321/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 320/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 319/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 318/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCITCENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 317/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 316/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 307/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 306/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIORCLE-1(3_, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 305/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 304/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 303/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 302/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 301/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…unt herself. The same is not the case here. The decision of Pune Tribunal in the case of Sakharam Bhondve (ITA No.951/Pun/2019 dated 06-01-2020) is a decision of single member. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Prakash (173 Taxmann.com 311) is a decision against the assessee. However, the ratio of decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of V. Natarajan (supra) is binding on us. 6. Finally, considering the facts of the case, we would hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 54F, if otherwise he satisfies all the other conditions as stipulated ther…

GOPALKRISHNA PANDU SHETTY,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 32(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHRASHTRA

ITA 2471/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Gopalkrishna Pandu Shetty, 503/504, Darshan Tower, Chikuwadi, Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400092 [PAN: AKXPS6590C] …………… Appellant Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs Tax, Circle 32(1), Mumbai, Room No. 702, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Manish Sheth For the Respondent/Department : Shri Manish Ajudiya Date Conclusion of hearing : 05.12.2023 Pronouncement of order : 01.03.2024 O R…

PHOOL CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 513/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54

…have perusal the above case laws I find that in all cases the appellants had claimed the deduction under section 54 of the Act during filing of return. Other Hon'ble High Courts have different opinions on the above issues. In the case of Prakash v. ITO [2008] 173 Taxmann 311 (Bom) held that it is necessary and obligatory to have investment made in residential house in the name of transferor only and not in name of any other person. Contrary in the case of CIT vs. Kamal Wahal [2013] 30 taxmann. Com 34 (Delhi) held that it is not necessary and obligatory to have investment made in residential house in the name of t…

DCIT, CC, GZBD , GZBD vs. ANJALI MITTAL , GZBD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Anjali Mittal, Income Tax, B-7, Ashok Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201 001. Ghaziabad. Pan Aigpm4257R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 54FSection 54F(1)(b)Section 69A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Smt. Anjali Mittal, Income Tax, B-7, Ashok Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201 001. Ghaziabad. PAN AIGPM4257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department by : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.03.2023 Date of 06.04.2023 pronouncement : O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Ta…

BALARAJ GUTTAMIDI ,MANIKONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 262/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Balaraj Guttamidi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(1), R/O. Rangareddy. Hyderabad. Pan : Btlpg4930J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar. Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balaraj Guttamidi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(1), R/o. Rangareddy. Hyderabad. PAN : BTLPG4930J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar. Revenue by: Shri Kumar Adithya. Date of hearing: 20.12.2022 Date of pronouncement: 21.12.2022 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Hyderabad dt.06.02.2020 invoking…

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3