Shrinivas R Desai v. ACIT

155 TTJ 743Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#19291 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,416 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

cost of improvementsection 143(3)

Judgments citing Shrinivas R Desai v. ACIT

Renu Ratnakar Bhattacharya, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2146/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Meena Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54E

…as Deduction u/s 54 3. Ground 3- 3. The Appellant relies on the Judgements of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Rustom Homi Vakil, vs ACIT (ITA No.4450/Mum/2014) and of the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal in the cases of Srinivas R Desai Vs ACIT [(2013) 155 TTJ 743 & Rajat B Mehta vs ITO (ITA No.19/Ahd/16) 4. Ground 4- 4. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter, include, modify and/or withdraw any of the Grounds of Appeal before final conclusion of the Appeal petition and the detailed Statement of Facts shall be presented before Your Honour at the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated facts ne…

Gurumukh I Sangtani, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1201/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…all. Accordingly, the aforesaid costs would form an integral part of the total amount invested for acquisition of the house property. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Shrinivas R Desai vs. ACIT reported in 155 TTJ 743 (Ahd) in support of its contentions. The assessee also pleaded before the ld. CIT(A) that the following expenditures were incurred by the assessee towards improvement of the house through regular banking channels:- Sr. No. Payment date in Bank Amount Statement 1 25/07/2006 49,000 2 30/07/2006 1,02,500 3 26/07/2006 38,000 4 02/11/2006 1,28,250 5…

Komal Gurumukh Sangtani, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1200/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…all. Accordingly, the aforesaid costs would form an integral part of the total amount invested for acquisition of the house property. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Shrinivas R Desai vs. ACIT reported in 155 TTJ 743 (Ahd) in support of its contentions. The assessee also pleaded before the ld. CIT(A) that the following expenditures were incurred by the assessee towards improvement of the house through regular banking channels:- Sr. No. Payment date in Bank Amount Statement 1 25/07/2006 49,000 2 30/07/2006 1,02,500 3 26/07/2006 38,000 4 02/11/2006 1,28,250 5…

Shri Rajat B. Mehta, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer (Intl. Taxn.), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 19/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…the Assessing Officer did not have an issue with the proposition that expenses incurred to make the house habitable will qualify for deduction under section 54F, as was held by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Srinivas R Desai Vs ACIT [(2013) 155 TTJ 743 (Ahd)], he was of the view that expenses incurred on buying furniture cannot be said to be expenses incurred for making the house habitable. In effect, he viewed the payment made, under the separate agreement for sale of furniture and fixtures, entirely on standalone basis and independent of the purchase of house. On the basis of this line of rea…

Shrinivas R Desai v. ACIT (155 TTJ 743) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax