Prakash v. ITO

Meenakshi Satish Varma, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1542/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mrs. Meenakshi Satish Varma Ito(It)-2(1), बनाम/ 100/101, Sher E Punjab Society, Scindia House, Mumbai-400 038 Jyoti Paradise, Mahakali Caves Road, Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afapv 5167 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 18.12.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao In Not Allowing Exemption U/S.54F Amounting To Rs.62,73,840/- Out Of The Total Exemption Of Rs.1,61,84,180/- Claimed By The Appellant Allegedly On The Ground That The Residential Property Purchased By The Appellant Was Registered In Her Son'S Name & Hence The Same Does Not Qualify For Claiming Exemption U/S.54F. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That Funds For The Purchase Of Residential Flat Were Completely Utilized

…ered with the name of the appellant. The appellant has submitted various decisions to claim deduction on the flat registered in her son’s name. however, the said claim of the appellant cannot be accepted in light of the decision in the case of Prakash vs. ITO 173 Taxmann 311 (Bom.) 2008. It has been held that the new residential property should be purchased by the assessee in his/her own name. therefore, keeping the ratio of this case and considering that it is from the jurisdictional court the issue is decided against the appellant. This ground is accordingly dismissed. 5 Mrs. Meenakshi Satish Varma 7. As regar…

Kapil Ashok Bajaj, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Kapil Ashok Bajaj Vs. ACIT 20(1) Flat No. 9, Seven Bunglows Mumbai J.P. Rd. |Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400061 PAN No. AFBPB7764A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kiran S. Mehta, AR Revenue by: Shri M.V. Rajguru, DR Date of Hearing : 05/01/2017 Date of pronouncement: 29/03/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the or…

Ajit Dayal Lalvani, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 7(2)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1949/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Mr. Ajit Dayal Lalvani Dy. Cit 7(2) बनाम/ 3, Gazdar House, 45, Mumbai Vs. Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai – 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abbpl4560C

…l as his son. It is not in dispute that for the purpose of exemption u/s.54F of the Act the assessee’s share would only be entitled in view of the law settled by High Court of Bombay in case of Prakash Vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. (2008) 220 CTR 249 : (2009) 312 ITR 40. But it is not in dispute that the CIT(A) has only considered the cost of construction for the purpose of deduction 5 A.Y. 2005-06 u/s.54F of the Act to the extent of his 1/3rd shares to the tune of Rs.6,59,786/- i.e. Rs.1,81,760/- 6. Now the circular No. 667, dated 18.10.1993 is quite clear and is reproduced as under:- i. Section 54 and 54F p…

Viswanath S. Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(2), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…e, the moot issue to be decided is whether the appellant is entitled for exemption u/s 54, even if the new residential house is not purchased in his name. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has relied upon the case of Prakash Vs ITO & Others.(2009) 312 ITR 40 of Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) and has stated that the appellant’s case is squarely covered by this decision which is against him. 5.1 I have gone through the aforesaid decision of Bombay High Court n the case of Prakash Vs ITO & Others. This decision which is f jurisdictional High Court which clearly lays down that for qualifying for exempti…

Madhav Ramchandra Karode, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

…name of the assessee’s son Shri Ashok Karode first, followed by the name of assessee as the second holder. He then disallowed the claim placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Jai Narayan Vs. ITO, 306 ITR 335(P&H) and Prakash Vs. ITO (2008) 173 Taxmann 311 (Bom) and observing that in order to qualify for exemption the asset should be in the name of the assessee only. 4. By the impugned order the CIT(A), allowed 50% of deduction on the plea that in the new house so purchased the assessee has also included the name of his son. Against this order of CIT(A) the assessee is in further appeal before…