Prakash v. ITO

173 Taxmann 311High Court2008#2232 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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 54F Section 148 Section 54

Issues it is cited on

section 90a unexplained jewellery section 24(b)under-reporting of income section 80c foreign tax credit royalty income section 54f withholding tax disallowance of interest expenditure section 139(4)section 54

Judgments citing Prakash v. ITO

Roashan Vishnu Pathare, L/H of Vishnu Tukaram Pathare, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 4(4), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 221/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 68

…ins in his name. We rather note that the alleged newly constructed house property was found belonging to this appellant’s deceased grandfather Lt. Tukaram Govind Pathare. We therefore quote hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in Prakash V/s. ITO 2009 312 ITR 40 (Bom.) to affirmed the impugned disallowance in principle. 4. The fact also remains that we have prime facie notice assessee have executed his corresponding sale deed (registered documents) on 24.12.2010 whether as the Assessing Officer’s remand report stated the same have been acted upon on 30.04.2011 ( in the relevant previous year). We are the…

D.Devadoss, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 21(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1661/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri k Meenakshisundaram-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…residential property in assessee own name and not on his unmarried daughter. This exemption is exclusive to be claimed by the assessee which cannot be clubbed or applied to the blood relation or family members and also rely on the decision of Prakash vs. ITO 173 Taxmann 311 (Bom) 2008 were the lordship have considered that the exemption should be allowed only in the name of the assessee confirm of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this ground and dismiss the ground of the assessee. 9. The ld. Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.97,82,000/- to the returned income without considerin…

Jayawant Gajanan Sutar, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1(5), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 556/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 54Section 54B

…by the authorities on the ground that the new property was purchased in the name of the assessee’s wife. The ld. CIT(A), while affirming the order passed by the AO, has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Prakash Vs. ITO (2009) 312 ITR 40 (Bom.). The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in this case has held that when a new property is purchased in the name of son with clear intention to transfer the property to him and the son becomes absolute owner of the property for all the purposes, the assessee cannot claim the benefit of exemption u/s.54B of the Act. 7. It is seen that the…

Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1567/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1567/PUN/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant PAN : AWNPS8232K बनधम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent ITO, 2(4), Pune Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 20.04.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. This…

Smt. S.M.Shoba, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1955/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40Th Cross, 4Th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Cxkps1454H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramasubramanian, Ca : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.07.2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) In So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Denying The Cost Of The Land For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54F Of The Act On The Ground That Such Land Was Purchased Four Years Prior To The Date Of Sale Of Original Asset. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Enhancing The Assessment By Making A Of Disallowance From Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramanian, CA

Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. S.M. Shoba, No. 1489, First Floor, The Income Tax 40th Cross, 4th T Block, Officer, Jayanagar, Ward 7 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: CXKPS1454H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ramasubramanian, CA : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 09-02-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order date…

Urmila Madhumar Ved, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1891/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1891/Pun/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 148Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…ng to Rs.46,59,600/- could not be granted because the new property was purchased by the assessee’s son in his own name. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order passed by the AO relying on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Prakash Vs. ITO (2009) 312 ITR 40 (Bom.), against which the assessee has approached the Tribunal. 3 Urmila Madhukar Ved 4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The primary question for consideration is as to whether exemption u/s.54 can be allowed when the new property purchased by the assessee in the name of someone else other than se…

Vandana Maruti Pathare, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2223/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vandana Maruti Pathare Vs. Ito, Ward S.No.69, Sania Constructions, 2(3), Pune Kharadi, Pune 411014 Pan : Akapp6727H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Deepak Sasar Revenue By Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16-03-2022

Section 54B

…ld that the condition precedent for claiming exemption u/s 54B of the Act was that the new property should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Vs. ITO and Others (2009) 312 ITR 40 (Bom), the AO held that exemption u/s 54B could not be allowed because the property was not purchased in the name of assessee. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. At the outset, it…

DCIT-8(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Ashok Santu Bhavani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as allowed

ITA 6510/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6Th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New Pushpamilan, Mk Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018

For Appellant: Mr.Mehul Jain.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Ajit Jain.AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT – 8(1)(2) Vs. Shri Ashok Santu Room No. 625, 6th Floor Bhavnani Aayakar Bhavan, 22, New pushpamilan, MK Marg, Mumbai – 67 Worli Hills, Worli, 400 020. Mumbai – 400018 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AEUPB2016F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.Mehul Jain.Sr.DR Respondent by : Mr.Ajit Jain.AR Date of Hearing 18.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed the appeal against the order of…

Braham Prakash, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6188/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 54BSection 54F

…1 Braham Prakash Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2011-12 Braham Prakash, Vs Income-tax Officer, C/o Kunal Aggarwal & Associates, Ward-2(4), Gurgaon 226, 2nd Floor, jmD Megapolis, Sohna Road, Sector-48, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 PAN- BMGPP4895K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14.02.2022 Date of pronouncement 18.02.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-ta…

Shri. Sajal Radhikamohan Kar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-27 (3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6476/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sajal Radhikamohan Kar Acit,Circle -27(3) 503, Swastik Solitaire, Chadve Vs. Tower 6, Vashi Railway Chs, Sion Trombay Road, Station Complex, Chember, Mumbai – 400071 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan No. Aadpk3367P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G.Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 54

…ricted to the extent of his ownership in the property in question i.e 50% of the investment therein involved. Our aforesaid conviction is supported by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Prakash Vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. (2009) 312 ITR 40 (Bom). In the aforesaid case the following question of law was inter alia raised before the Hon‟ble High Court : “3. Whether for qualifying for exemption under s. 54F of the IT Act is it necessary and obligatory to have investment made in residential house in the name of assessee only or investment in residential house is enough to qualify and cl…

Mr.M.George Joseph vs. Dy.Commissioner of Incomet Tax Officer

In the result, order of the

ITA/238/2015HC Karnataka12 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54F

…strictly. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to 'COMMISSIONER OF CUTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI VS. DILIP KUMAR & CO', (2018) 68 GST 39, 'JAI NARAYAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER', 306 ITR 335 (P & H), 'PRAKASH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS', 312 ITR 40 (MUMBAI) and 'VIPIN MALIK (HUF) VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2009) 330 ITR 0309 (DEL). 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have carefully perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant extract of Section 54F of the Act, which reads as under: Capital gain on transfer of c…

Sri Anand Kumar Dhanuka, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Ranchi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 163/RAN/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.163/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 10Section 22Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI, ‘E’COURT, AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.163/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Anand Kumar Dhanuka Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi Flat No. 604, 6th Floor, Residency Estate, Amaltash, Old H.B. road, Lalpur, Ranchi-834001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACAPD 6322 L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Respondent by :Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 13/07/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench (Oral): T…

Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

…asset should be purchased by the Assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the Assessee only. 24. The view of the revenue finds support in the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Vs. ITO 312 ITR 40 (Bom) wherein it was held that to claim deduction u/s.54F of the Act, it is necessary and obligatory to have investment made in residential house in the name of the Assessee only and not in the name of any other person. The view of the Assessee finds support in the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT (Intl.) Vs. Mrs. Jennif…

Smt. Pinky, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2222/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Berulal Suthar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR

Section 54Section 54F

…h Court of Karnataka in case of DIT vs Mrs. Jennifer Bhide ITA 169/2011 (349 ITR 80) is applicable to the instant case. Further, the assessing officer at Para 8 of the order referred to the decisions of Honorable High Court of Bombay in case of Prakash vs ITO 173 Taxmann 311 (BOM) being counter judgment. The assessing officer in his order has distinguished the case laws of Mrs. Jennifer Bhide ITA 169/2011 Mahadev Balai vs. ITO ITA No. 136/2017 - Honorable Rajasthan High Court and CIT vs Kamal Wahal 3511TR 4 - Honorable Delhi High Court relied on by the appellant and relying on the decisions of Honorable High Cour…

Sakharam Bhondve, Pune vs. Income Tax Office, Ward -9 (1), Pune

ITA 951/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 48Section 54B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य मामला” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE "ी डी. क"णाकरा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.951/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Sakharam Bhondve, At Post- Ravet, Tal.- Haveli, Pune-412101. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant PAN : ABDPB9893J बनाम / V/s. ITO, Ward-9(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Ms. Archana Shetty Revenue by : Shri Prashant Mahajan सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13.11.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2020 आदेश /…

Varun Sunoy Saraswat, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Jalgaon

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2148/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Varun Sunoy Saraswat, A/901, Crest Avenue, Behind Mahendra Showroom, Mumba Highway, Baner, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Bqkps1546L Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ एक-सदस्य मामऱा पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.2148/PUN/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Varun Sunoy Saraswat, A/901, Crest Avenue, Behind Mahendra Showroom, Mumba Highway, Baner, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411045 …. PAN: BQKPS1546L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1(1), Jalgaon अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Nikhil Pathak प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri M.K. Verma सुनवाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख…

Bhima Dada Kharate, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Nashik

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 55A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1596/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balu Vitthal Kharate, H. No.894/3, Gandharvawadi, Near Forest Nursery Canal, Makhmalabad, Nashik-422013 PAN : BEYPK5261C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1598/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhima Dada Kharate H. No.894/3, Gandharvawadi, Nea…

Balu Vitthal Kharate, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1596/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 55A

Shri Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2692/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri H.R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryawamshi, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2Section 54F

…e purchased by the Assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the Assessee only. Page 16 of 17 24. The view of the revenue finds support in the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash Vs. ITO 312 ITR 40 (Bom) wherein it was held that to claim deduction u/s.54F of the Act, it is necessary and obligatory to have investment made in residential house in the name of the Assessee only and not in the name of any other person. The view of the Assessee finds support in the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DIT (Intl.) Vs. Mrs. Jennif…

ITO Non Corporate Ward 20(4), Chennai vs. Immnuel Charles, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2366/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Bharath,CIT,C.RFor Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi Advocate

Section 54Section 54F

…es not include investment made jointly with a relative, who is not a legal heir and it is immaterial that no contribution was made by that relative. 2.3 The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the ratio of the decisions in the case of Prakash Vs ITO(Bom) 312 ITR 40, Ganta Vijay Lakshmi Vs ITO (AP) 229 Taxman 594, and D.Devadass Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) 48 ITR (Trib) 613.” 4. It was submitted by ld.D.R that only issue raised in this appeal was against the action of Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act in respect of purchase of a new property along with his brother, Mr.Den…