MR.M.GEORGE JOSEPH vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET TAX OFFICER

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 54F of the Act and disallowed the claim and added the amount to the returned income. 3. The assessee

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MRS. VANAJA MATTHEN

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Court, Questioning The Order Dated 25.01.2017 In

disallowed deduction under Section 54F of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) on the ground that the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 54F by investment in residential property at New York. The assessee filed his submissions supporting the investments made outside the country. The assessing officer has disallowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GREGORY MATHIAS

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) would be available to the assessee had observed at paragraph 5.5 and 5.6 as under: “5.5. Considering the fact that the assessee is already a owner of more than one residential house, a show cause notice dated 20.12.2011 was issued to the assessee proposing to disallow

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI R SRINIVAS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 54F of the Act. 4. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the Revenue and the appeal filed by the assessee

ZAMEER MIRJA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

54F is incorrect and that the assessee would be entitled to exemption only under Section 54 and the exemption granted towards Rs.20,00,000/- was disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RAVINDRA UPADRASHTA

Appeal is dismissed;

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

disallowance made under section 54F of the Act by holding that the investment made by assessee outside India satisfies the condition

MR.SIDDHARTH JAIN vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF

Appeal is dismissed;

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

disallowance made under section 54F of the Act by holding that the investment made by assessee outside India satisfies the condition

CHITTHARANJAN A DASANNACHARYA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 54F was disallowed. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.10.2011 dismissed

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the claim of set off of brought forward loss. It is also pointed out that proviso to Section 72(i) was omitted by Finance act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000 and for the impugned assessment year 2003-04, the assessee was not required to carry on the business for the purpose of set off of brought forward business loss

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand