“Section 64(1)(iv)”

Section References (mined)Section 64Section 64(1)(iv)8 judgments

SIVASUNDAR SELVAKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balakrishnan, CIT

Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 194ISection 45

mortgage and the same was offered to tax in the return of income of the assessee’s husband for A.Y.2016-17 in terms of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act, since the asset had been transferred to spouse without consideration. 9. The notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued ... escapement of income. The capital gain had already been offered to tax in the hands of the assessee’s husband as mandated by section 64(1)(iv) of the Act. It was submitted that once income is statutorily includible in the hands of the transferor spouse, the same cannot

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 234BSection 250Section 49Section 50(2)Section 50C

transferred and capital gain is charged in the hands of the assessee which is not correct in view of the provisions of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act. He submitted the fact that assessee is individual and wife of Shri. Rajesh Gundu Rao who gifted the property ... also mentioned that the impugned property sold is gift received by the assessee from her husband. He referred to provisions of section 64(1)(iv) of the Act which provides that subject to the provisions of clause (1) of section 27 of the Act, income of an individual should also

GOKUL PRASAD PATEL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 353/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 64(1)(iv)

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ

KAVITA MANOJ DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERM INT TAX WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2648/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 64(1)(iv)

nground that the 50% share in the said property was gifted by her husband to her and,\ntherefore, the provisions of Section 64(1)(iv) were applicable making her husband as\nthe deemed owner but without appreciating that at the most only the net income after\nconsidering the eligible exemption ... wherein the AO has denied\nthe exemption claimed u/s.54 to the extent of 50% on the\nground that the provisions of Section 64(1)(iv) were applicable to\nthat extent on account of gift made by the husband of the\nassessee to the assessee, it was submitted that once again

SHRI BALBIR SINGH VERMA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 314/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

Lastly, the Pr. CIT noted that the assessee had gifted a property to his wife, who was earning rental income from it. Under Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, this income should have been clubbed with the assessee’s total income. However, the AO neither addressed this

PRADEEP GARG, AJMER,AJMER vs. ITO 2(1) AJMER , AJMER

ITA 397/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 64(1)(iv)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR\nडा० एस

SHUBHANKAR NAYAK,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41 (2)(5), BKC

ITA 4524/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194Section 199(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

SATYARANJAN CHAND,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 125/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Satyaranjan Satyaranjan Chand, Chand, Plot Vs. Dy. Dy. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of 3Rd No.Ga-722, 722, 3 Floor, Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Kalinga Nagar, K Kalinga Nagar, K-3-B, Po: Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aajpc 7891 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawal Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11 /11/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawal walla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 263Section 54F

stand gets support from the order of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Smt. Maya wherein it was held that section 64(1)(iv) will not operate to nullify gift and would operate only to club income in the hands of donor assessee. 14. At this juncture