Smt. Usharani Kalidindi v. ITO

106 ITD 167Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#14666 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing Smt. Usharani Kalidindi v. ITO

Sri. Ramakrishna Nishtala, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 164/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayan, JCIT(DR)

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…d to have been spent on interior decoration can’t be granted since it is not for the purpose of making the house into habitats condition. This view of ours is supported by the decision of ITAT Mumbain Bench in the case of Salin Facelbholy Vs. DCIT reported in 106 ITD 167. 4.15 The Ld.AO is directed to compute the proportionate deduction as follows :- LTCG x Amount spent for Registration & Stamp Duty --------------------------------------------------------------- Net Consideration Accordingly the grounds raised by assessee stands partly allowed. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed. Order…

Nilkant Mangesh Rege, Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 413/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Nilkant Mangesh Rege The Asst. Commissioner Of 201, Amidhaval Jeevanvikas Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle Marg Koldongri Andheri (E) 24(3), 3Rd Floor, Piramal Mumbai-400 057 Chamber Lal Bag, Mumbai Pan No. Andr4634H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri D.C. Saboo, Ar Revenueby : Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Saboo, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi nayak, DR

Section 143(3)Section 251Section 54E

…014 i.e. in the AY 2015- 16, he has to pay tax on capital gains. In this respect a copy of the computation and challan for tax paid was filed. In support of his above contentions, the Ld. counsel filed a copy of the decision in Saleem Fazelbhoy v. DCIT (2007) 106 ITD 167 (Mumbai), CIT v. Late Khoobchand M. Makhija (2014) 112 DTR (Kar), Anusuya Suren Mirchandani v. ACIT (ITA No. 3159/Mum/2012). 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR refers to page 7 of the Paper Book (P/B) filed by the assessee and submits that as the assessee failed to file the voucher relating to cost of improvement and only an affidavit has been file…

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

…existing at the property at the time of purchase of the same and electricity connection was obtained subsequently. On this aspect, reliance was placed on Smt. Usharani Kalidindi v. ITO [2013] 25 ITR (Trib.) 409 [Hyderabad]; Saleem Fazelbhoy v. Dy.CIT [2007] 106 ITD 167 [Mum.]; Mrs. Sonia Gulati v. ITO [2001] 115 Taxman 232 [Mum.]; and ITO v. Smt. Rohini Reddy [2009] 313/ ITR (AT) 346 (Hyderabad) and Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO was justified in making addition as such no interference was required. She, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the assessee is before us in this appeal on the following ground:-…

Rajpal Trehan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6113/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta &For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR

Section 133B(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 54Section 54F

…hat if the house was not in a habitable condition, the same could not be considered residential house. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: 8 Rajpal Trehan " Usha Rani Kalindi Vs ITO 37 Taxman 360 (ITAT Hyd.) " Saleem Fazelbhoy Vs DCIT (2007) 106 ITD 167 (Mum.) " Mrs. Sonia Gulati Vs ITO (2001) 115 Taxman 232 (Mum.) 8. The ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the case of the assessee did not fall within the clause of Section 54F of the Act because the assessee neither bought any new house nor purchased the constructed house and he had not deposited the amount in capital gains account which was not bei…

Rustom Homi Vakil, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 4450/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4450/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Rustom Homi Vakil Acit 12(3) बनाम/ Flat No 27, Aaykar Bhawan V. 107,Maison Belvedre New Marine Lines Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aabpv1053F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Mahesh C. MathurFor Respondent: Mr. B S Bist, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54(1)(i)

…d before the CIT(A). The assessee also submitted that on west side of the house purchased, there is a nala near to the garden which required protection by fencing. The assessee relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai in case of Saleem Fazalbhoy v. DCIT (2007) 106 ITD 167(Mum.) and judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of B B Sarkar v. CIT (1981)132 ITR 150 (Cal. HC). The CIT(A) called for remand report from AO. The AO submitted remand report stating that on perusal of the photographs of the property at the time of purchase , the property cannot be said to be completely inhabitable. However, it does…

Smt. Shashi Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6109/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri V.K. Jain & Nem Singh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR

Section 54

…he above evidence and payment having been made to discharge the said bill, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, there 15 ITA No6109 /Del./2012 is no justification to restrict the claim to Rs.4 lakhs on estimate basis. In Saleem Fazelhoy v. DCIT - 106 ITD 167 (Mum), it was held that expenditure incurred on making house habitable is considered as investment in purchase of house, and hence deduction u/s 54F of the Act is allowable. In the another case in Mrs. Gulshanbanoo vs. JCIT - (2002) 83 ITD 649 (Mum.), it was held that cost of new house for the purpose of section 54, include not only cost of purch…