Supriya Kanwar v. Income Tax Officer

149 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2019#22633 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Supriya Kanwar v. Income Tax Officer

Prakash Choitram Tekwani, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1045/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 54B

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1045/PUN/2016 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Prakash Choitram Tekwani, 88, Adarsh Nagar, Nr. RTO Office, Jilha Peth, Jalgaon – 425001 PAN : AAKPT0929P .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Jalgaon ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Ghei सुनवाई क…

ACIT, Cir.- 17(1), Mumbai vs. Abhay Ramesh Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4983/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Gubgutra (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rajen Damani (DR)

Section 253Section 254(1)Section 54F

…apital asset, the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F in respect of cost of new flat- ITA No. 4983 Mum 2016-Shri Abhay Ramesh Kumar Agarwal (a) Farida A. Dungerpurwala vs. ITa, 67 SOT 208 (Mum), (b) Smt. Ushaben Jayantilal Sodhan vs. ITA, 149 ITD 1 (Ahmedabad), and (c) ACIT vs. Sagar Nitin Parikh, (ITA No. 6399/Mum/2011) dated 03.06.2015. (iii) The Board vide its Circular Nos. 471 dated 15.10.1986 and 672 dated 16.12.1993 has explained that to qualify for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, in respect of the investment for construction of property, the crucial date is the date of allotment of flat…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Dhiren P. Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, both revenue’s appeal and assessee’s CO stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5164/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)

…ameshchandra Chordia [2015] 374 ITR 531 (Bom); ii) CIT v Lal Singh [2010] 325 ITR 588 (Punjab & Haryana); iii) ITO v Amrutilal B Shah [2013] 22 ITR (T) 668 (Mumbai – Trib): iv) Mrs. Sakunthal Vedachalam [2015] 369 ITR 558 (Mad); v) Supriya Kanwar v [2019] 149 ITD 1 (Jodhpur)(Trib)(TM). 10. On the issue of LTCG as raised in the Departmental appeal, he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned order after considering the submissions and evidences placed on record and hence the same should be upheld. On disallowance of expenditure also, he strongly relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 11. We hav…