Siva Beverages v. Income Tax Officer

38 ITD 125Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1991#9238 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 68

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirysection 263(1)lack of enquirysection 54fmalabar industrialsection 54section 119sundry creditorslimited scrutinynon-application of minddisallowance u/s 14aerroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing Siva Beverages v. Income Tax Officer

AMEETSINGH AJITSINGH RAJPAL,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

ITA 1705/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1705/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ameetsingh Ajitsingh Rajpal, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. 479, Eden Villa, Rasta Peth, Kasba Peth, Pune- 411011. Pan : Aaqpr3148E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Riya Oswal Revenue By : Smt. N. C. Shilpa Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 54F Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Amounting To Rs. 92,85,214/-Solely On The Ground That The Reinvestment Was Not Made In A Residential House.

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora &For Respondent: Smt. N. C. Shilpa
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…te authorities. We further find that the assessee has relied on coordinate bench decisions passed in the case of Girish Mohan vs. CIT, 53 taxmann.com 554, CIT vs. Shri Rajat Bhandari, ITA No.4840/Delhi/2017 order dated 16.09.2021, Shyamsunder Mukhija vs. ITO, 38 ITD 125 and ITO vs. Saroj Devi, ITA 6 No.397/JP/2016 order dated 05.10.2017. It is the claim of the assessee that in all the above cases similar/identical issue i.e. with regard to deduction u/s 54 of the Act was the subject matter and in the case of a CIT vs. Rajat Bhandari (supra) deduction u/s 54f of the Act was allowed wherein a farmhouse was constru…

M/S ROCKBED RENOVATORS LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 196CSection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. CIT-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAACR7151G Assessee by Shri Gagan Tiwari AR Revenue by Ms. Ila Parmar, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.06.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by assessee is directed against the revision order dated 28.03.2023 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhop…

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 148/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263

…ion 54F cannot be denied on the ground that land on which construction done was agriculture in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgements in case of Vishnu Trading Co. 259 ITR 724 (Raj.), Narendra Mohan Uniyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.), Shyam Sunder Mukhija Vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 (JPR) and ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (2012) 53 SOT 158 (JPR). In the case of Narendra Mohan Uniyal (Supra) it is held that "It is crystal clear from the plain reading of ss. 54 and 54F that exemption is allowable in respect of amount invested in the construction of a residential house. There is no any rider under s. 54F that no deduction would be a…

SEWA SAHKARI SAMMITTEE MARYADIT,BEED, MUNDI KHANDWA vs. PCIT-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

…ion 54F cannot be denied on the ground that land on which construction done was agriculture in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgements in case of Vishnu Trading Co. 259 ITR 724 (Raj.), Narendra Mohan Uniyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.), Shyam Sunder Mukhija Vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 (JPR) and ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (2012) 53 SOT 158 (JPR). In the case of Narendra Mohan Uniyal (Supra) it is held that "It is crystal clear from the plain reading of ss. 54 and 54F that exemption is allowable in respect of amount invested in the construction of a residential house. There is no any rider under s. 54F that no deduction would be a…

MAA NARMADA AGROTECH AND INFRASTURES LTD,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 117/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ion 54F cannot be denied on the ground that land on which construction done was agriculture in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgements in case of Vishnu Trading Co. 259 ITR 724 (Raj.), Narendra Mohan Uniyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.), Shyam Sunder Mukhija Vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 (JPR) and ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (2012) 53 SOT 158 (JPR). In the case of Narendra Mohan Uniyal (Supra) it is held that "It is crystal clear from the plain reading of ss. 54 and 54F that exemption is allowable in respect of amount invested in the construction of a residential house. There is no any rider under s. 54F that no deduction would be a…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI vs. KANWAL MOHAN SINGH SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 500/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 24Section 43Section 48Section 54

…litary ground on which the Ld. AO disallowed the claim of the assessee is that the residential house is constructed on agricultural land. The impugned disallowance is not valid on this ground alone as ITAT Jaipur Bench has held in Shyam Sunder Makhija vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 that the Farm House is also a residential house. The Ld. AR submitted that section 54 does not put any rider that deduction in respect of investment in acquisition of land appurtenant to the building will not quality for exemption. 9.1 We have given our careful thought to the submissions of the parties and perused the orders of the Ld. AO/CIT(A)…

SMT. LATA PHULWANI,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Amrish Bedi (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 54F

…ion 54F cannot be denied on the ground that land on which construction done was agriculture in nature. Reliance is placed on the judgements in case of Vishnu Trading Co. 259 ITR 724 (Raj.), Narendra Mohan Uniyal 34 SOT 152 (Del.), Shyam Sunder Mukhija Vs. ITO 38 ITD 125 (JPR) and ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (2012) 53 SOT 158 (JPR). In the case of Narendra Mohan Uniyal (Supra) it is held that "It is crystal clear from the plain reading of ss. 54 and 54F that exemption is allowable in respect of amount invested in the construction of a residential house. There is no any rider under s. 54F that no deduction would be a…

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA BISHNOI, PANCHKULA

In the result appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargthe Ito Vs. Smt. Seema Bishnoi Ward-4, Panchkula H.No. 906, Sec-08, Panchkula

For Appellant: Shri. A.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G.S. Phani Kishore, CI TDR
Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…ed. Further the farm house is to be considered as residential house for the -purpose of exemption u / s 54F for which reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncement. The Honb'le Jaipur ITAT in the case of Shy am Sunder Makhija Vs. Income-Officer, 38 ITD 125 held that "the Farm House can be treated as residential house for the purpose of the claiming exemption u/s. 54F of the Act.” In view of the above, the AO has erred in alleging that the payment has been made for purchase of land only and the contentions drawn by the AO are not tenable. It is further submitted that we rely upon the submissions made…

MANOJ KUMAR SABHARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 5(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3930/DEL/2017[20102-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charymanoj Kumar Sabharwal, Vs Ito, A-1, G.T.Karnal Road, Industrial Ward-5(3), Area, Delhi-110033. C.R.Building, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 54

…ssessee are available, or whether the assessee is residing there or not, are totally irrelevant considerations to deal with the matter for exemption u/s 54F of the Act, in view of the decision rendered to above. Further in Shyam Sunder Mukhija vs ITO [1991] 38 ITD 125 (JP), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal held that a farm house can also to be treated as residential house and thus eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Apart from this, it is the observation of the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) that guards were residing in the structure, existing in the property purchased by the assessee. 7. Further t…

SMT. SANTOSH,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground

ITA 5042/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri KL Aneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274Section 54Section 54F

…ifferent. In that particular case it was not an independent residential unit. However, in the present case the asset purchased by the assessee is not a residential unit at all but a commercial property. The second decision relied upon by the ld AR reported in 38 ITD 125 is also not relevant to decide the present issue because in that case the assessee purchased a farm house which is consisting of a swimming pool, room and other utility. In the present case the assessee has purchased only one unit space of 109.23 sq mt having balcony only. The land use of the property also commercial. The property was also purchas…

ACIT CC 25, MUMBAI vs. PARLE BOTTING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed and appeal of the revenue is hereby Dismissed

ITA 3689/MUM/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3344/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) बनाम/ Parle Bottling Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit. Cent. Cir. 25 (Now Known As Parle Agro 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai - 400020 Western Express Highway, Chalkala, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400099 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3689/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) बनाम/ Dy. Cit. Cent. Cir. 25 Parle Bottling Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, (Now Known As Parle Agro Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pvt. Ltd.) Western Express Highway, Chalkala, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400099 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp8417M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina (Senior Advocate) Department By: Shri Pradeep Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Firoze AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई "ायपीठ ‘सी ’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी आर. सी. शमा", लेखा सद", एवं "ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद", के सम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3344/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) बनाम/ Parle Bottling Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT. Cent. Cir. 25 (Now known as Parle agro 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai - 400020 Western Express Highway, Chalkala, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400099 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3689/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) बनाम/ Dy. CIT. Cent. Cir. 25 Parle Bottl…

PARLE BOTTLING P.LTD ( NOW KNOWN AS PARLE AGRO P.LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 25, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed and appeal of the revenue is hereby Dismissed

ITA 3344/MUM/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3344/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) बनाम/ Parle Bottling Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit. Cent. Cir. 25 (Now Known As Parle Agro 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai - 400020 Western Express Highway, Chalkala, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400099 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3689/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) बनाम/ Dy. Cit. Cent. Cir. 25 Parle Bottling Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, (Now Known As Parle Agro Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pvt. Ltd.) Western Express Highway, Chalkala, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400099 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp8417M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina (Senior Advocate) Department By: Shri Pradeep Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Firoze AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई "ायपीठ ‘सी ’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी आर. सी. शमा", लेखा सद", एवं "ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद", के सम" BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3344/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) बनाम/ Parle Bottling Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT. Cent. Cir. 25 (Now known as Parle agro 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai - 400020 Western Express Highway, Chalkala, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400099 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3689/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) बनाम/ Dy. CIT. Cent. Cir. 25 Parle Bottl…