Vipin Malik (HUF) v. CIT

330 ITR 309High Court2009#20540 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,460 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Vipin Malik (HUF) v. CIT

Mr.M.George Joseph vs. Dy.Commissioner of Incomet Tax Officer

In the result, order of the

ITA/238/2015HC Karnataka12 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 260ASection 54Section 54F

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR I.T.A. NO.238 OF 2015 BETWEEN: MR. M. GEORGE JOSEPH NO.534/30, 5TH CROSS MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BANGALORE-560086. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHANKAR A. SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, ADV.,) AND: DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 12(2) 4TH FLOOR, R.P. BHAVAN 14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX…

Mrs Romita Mathur, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5976/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiromita Mathur, Vs. Dcit, Y-183, Regency Park-2, Circle-7(2), Dlf, Phase-Iv, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan: Aappm7084F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)Section 54F

…n 13/03/2015 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 8236492/- against the returned income of Rs. 1578762/-. 5. On appeal before the ld CIT(A), he upheld the order of the learned AO relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in 330 ITR 309. Therefore, assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT(A) before us. 6. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and therefore the issue is decided on the merits of the case as per information available on record. 7. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and statin…

Ranji Dhawan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1788/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. S.C. Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR

Section 54Section 54F

…t decided this issue in assessee’s favour. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. 3 Ravinder Kumar Arora (2012) 342 38 ITR (Delhi). The reliance of the learned CIT(A) on the judgment in Vipin Malik (HUF) vs. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 309 (Delhi) is misplaced inasmuch as that was the case in which the residential house was not purchased either within one year before the sale of agricultural land or within two years after the sale. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the assessee was justified in claiming the benefit of section 54. We, therefore, overturn…

M/S Sri, M. George Joseph, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 13/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.R. Suresh, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivakar,JCIT (D.R)

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

…hat the investment in the new asset should be in the name of the assessee has been reiterated by the judicial pronouncements laid down in the following decisions. Jai Narayan Vs. ITO 306 ITR 335 (P&H) Prakash Vs. ITO 312 ITR 40 (Mum) Vipin Malik (HUF) Vs. CIT 330 ITR 309 (Del) Considering the facts and the legal propositions laid down above these grounds are dismissed.” 5.3.1 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee filed written submissions vide letter dt.24.12.2014, virtually reiterating the written submissions made before the learned CIT(A) and citing the same judicial pronouncements in…