Trib.) ITO v. Rania Faleiro (Ms.)

142 ITD 769Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#22539 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing Trib.) ITO v. Rania Faleiro (Ms.)

Rajendra Harjivandas Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 949/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…Taxman 10 (Mad.)(HC) CIT. Vs.Snram Indubai (2015) 370 ITR 579 (Mad.) (HC) CIT Vs.Coromandel Industries Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 586/230 Taxman 548 (Mad) (HC) Mrs. LilavatiSayani us. ITO (2014) 49 taxmann.com 579 (Mumbai - Trib.) ITO Vs. Rania Faleiro (Ms.) (2013) 142 ITD 769 (Panji) (Trib.) Thus, in view of the above facts and overwhelming position of law coupled with the clear legislative intention to insert the second proviso to Section 54EC only wef 01/04/2015 Le. A.Y.2015-16 and subsequent years restricting the maximum investment of Rs.50 lakhs irrespective of financial year, I am of the opinion that from a plain…

The ACIT. Circle-2(2), Ahmedbad vs. Rajendra Harjivandas Prajapati, Ahmedbad

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

ITA 822/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…Taxman 10 (Mad.)(HC) CIT. Vs.Snram Indubai (2015) 370 ITR 579 (Mad.) (HC) CIT Vs.Coromandel Industries Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 586/230 Taxman 548 (Mad) (HC) Mrs. LilavatiSayani us. ITO (2014) 49 taxmann.com 579 (Mumbai - Trib.) ITO Vs. Rania Faleiro (Ms.) (2013) 142 ITD 769 (Panji) (Trib.) Thus, in view of the above facts and overwhelming position of law coupled with the clear legislative intention to insert the second proviso to Section 54EC only wef 01/04/2015 Le. A.Y.2015-16 and subsequent years restricting the maximum investment of Rs.50 lakhs irrespective of financial year, I am of the opinion that from a plain…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Ajay Kaila, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6907/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 54Section 54E

…50 lakhs if eligibility period falls in two different financial years. Similar view was held by the Bangalore ITAT in the case of Shri Vivek Jairazbhoy vs. DCIT [TS-901-ITAT-20i2(Bang)] & Panaji ITAT in Panaji ITAT in Shantabai V. Kamat vs. CIT reported in 142 ITD 769. 8. However the Jaipur bench of ITAT in AC1T vs. Shri Raj Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) [TS-142-ITAT-2012OJPR)] took a contrary view and held that Sec 54EC exemption was to be restricted to Rs 50 lakhs, even if Rs 1 crore was invested in specified bonds within prescribed time limit falling in two different financial years. ITAT observed that interp…

Trib.) ITO v. Rania Faleiro (Ms.) (142 ITD 769) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax