Vinay Mishra v. ACIT

141 ITD 301Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#13447 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Judgments citing Vinay Mishra v. ACIT

ALI MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2098/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 143(3)Section 54

…ve stated amendment vide Finance Act, 2014 is applicable w.e.f.01-04-2015 only whereas we are in AY.2012- 13 and therefore, the same ought not to be held as carrying retrospective effect. This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s decisions in Vinay Mishra Vs. ACIT [141 ITD 301] (Bang) and Ms.Prema P.Shah Vs. ITO [100 ITD 60] hold in “pre- amendment era” that such a re-investment of capital gains in a residential house outside India is very much entitled for the impugned Section 54 relief. We thus reverse the learned lower authorities’ action disallowing assessee’s Section 54 deduction claim of Rs.44.20 lakhs for this p…

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5799/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Piyush ChhajjedFor Respondent: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR)

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…residential house", with the words" constructed, one residential house in India" was perhaps necessitated by the reason that these are contrary decision. They are : (i) Mrs. Prema P. Shah v. ITO [2006] 100 ITD 60 (Mum.) (ii) Vinay Mishra v. Asstt. CIT (2013) 141 ITD 301/3O taxmann.com 341(Bang. -Trib.). The above decisions held that : There was nothing to suggest that the new residential property acquired should be situated in India, However, the view in favour of Revenue was expressed in the following cases holding that the residential property acquired should be situated in India. (i) Leena J. Shah (supra) (ii…

IT 24(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. RUPANG C SUCHDE, PUNE

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee as well as the appeal of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 7183/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 Office Of The Ito – 24(3)(4), Shri Rupang C Suchde, 702, 7Th Floor, C/O Kiran Kanani & Piramal Chambers, Associates, Ca, Lalbaug, Vs. 71/A, Rasta Peth, Mumbai - 400012 Opp Israil Church, Narasimha Apartments, Pune – 411 011 Pan: Bhhps1959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.84/M/2016 (Ita No.7183/M/2014) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Rupang C Suchde, Office Of The Ito – 24(3)(4), 702, 7Th Floor, C/O Kiran Kanani & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Piramal Chambers, 71/A, Rasta Peth, Vs. Lalbaug, Opp Israil Church, Mumbai - 400012 Narasimha Apartments, Pune – 411 011 Pan: Bhhps1959P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Kashinath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspat Tripathi, D.R

Section 54Section 54F

…also relied upon the following decisions in this respect: 1. Girdhar Mohanani vs. ITO (ITA No.4591/M/2013) dated 06.05.2010 2. ITO vs. Dr. Girish M. Shah (ITA No.3582/M/2009 dated 17.02.2010 3. N. Ranganathan vs. ITO 33 ITR (Trib) 444 4. Vinay Mishra v. ACIT (141 ITD 301) 5. ACIT vs. Iqbal Jafar 151 ITD 364 4. We have gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (supra). Considering the identical issue, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court while analysing the provision of section 54F has observed that there was no condition in section 54F before its amendment by Finance (2) Act, 2004, which came into ef…

ITO TDS 3 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAYMOND HOMI KERMANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7097/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito Tds 3(1)(1) Ms. Raymond Homi Kermani, R.No.139, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Arvind Sangave & Co. Scindia House, Ballard 37-4/, Shaviri Premises Chs Vs. Pier, N.M. Road, Ltd., Mumbai-38 R.S. Sapre Marge, Princes Street, Mumbai-400002 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aappk3340Q Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Shri R.K. Kotain (Ar)

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 54Section 54F

…7058/M12013 Ms. Dhun Jehan Contractor 4 held that exemption is permissible, even if investment in new residential house is made outside India. 6. On the other hand, Id. AR relied on the decision of Bangalore bench of the Tribunal in the case of Virtay Mishra, 141 ITD 301, wherein it was held that provisions of Section 54F does not suggest that new residential house acquired should be situated only in India. Accordingly exemption was granted in respect of residential house acquired outside India. It was observed that on a plain reading of provisions of Section 54F one does not find anything therein to suggest that…

ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. FAROKH JAL DEBOO, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4650/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainincome Tax Officer (It)-1(1) Shri Farokh Jal Deboo Room No. 015, Scindia House 24-A, A Block, Usha Sadan Vs. Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400038 Next To Colaba Post Office Colaba, Mumbai 400005 Pan - Aacpd0275C Appellant Respondent Shri Farokh Jal Deboo Income Tax Officer (It)-1(1) 24-A, A Block, Usha Sadan Room No. 015, Scindia House Vs. Next To Colaba Post Office Ballard Pier, Mumbai 400038 Colaba, Mumbai 400005 Pan - Aacpd0275C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54

….7058/M/2013 Ms. Dhun Jehan Contractor 4 held that exemption is permissible, even if investment in new residential house is made outside India. 6. On the other hand, ld. AR relied on the decision of Bangalore bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vinay Mishra, 141 ITD 301, wherein it was held that provisions of Section 54F does not suggest that new residential house acquired should be situated only in India. Accordingly exemption was granted in respect of residential house acquired outside India. It was observed that on a plain reading of provisions of Section 54F one does not find anything therein to suggest that…

FAROKH JAL DEBOO,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 3478/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54

SMT. PREETHI PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 472/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsmt. Preethi Prasad, 423, 19Th Cross, 1St & 3Rd Block (East), Jayanagar, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore-Ii, Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Gr Reddy, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09-9-2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-9-2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri GR Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…point of acquisition of the new asset outside India, the learned AR of the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal dated 12/10/2012 in the case of Vinay Mishra Vs. ACIT, 141 ITD 301. Therefore, even on the merits of the said issue, it is not sustainable. Thus the learned AR submitted that when the AO allowing the claim has taken a possible view then the CIT(A) is not justified in invoking the provision of sec. 263 merely because he did not agree with the ITA No.472/B/14 8 view taken by the AO. As regards the acquisition…