ANTONY PARAKAL KURIAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S RACHAIAH

disallowed. As regards the claim made under Section 54F of the Act, the same came to be rejected. M.P.No.163/Bang/2020 was preferred by the assessee, the same came to be allowed in part directing Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] to decide 9 regarding eligibility of Rs.90 lakhs also under Section 54 of the Act, rejecting the other contentions raised

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

1. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance made under section 54F

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 purchased the property vide sale deeds dated 10.09.2008 and 20.11.2008, however, the construction of the flats have not been completed when the purchase was made under the said sale deeds. Further, it observed that the construction was completed

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

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

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

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 PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIT (A) vs. SHRI J KRISHNA PALEMAR

Appeal is allowed;

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

disallowance of claim made under section 54F of the Act by holding that out of five properties held by assessee, three properties cannot be considered as residential properties and as for remaining two properties are concerned, remanded the matter to CIT(A) for fresh decision ignoring that assessee held more than one house other than the new asset

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GREGORY MATHIAS

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the deduction under Section 54F to the assessee whether the assessee owns more than one residential house other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI R SRINIVAS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

1) BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: SHRI R.SRINIVAS, NO.4/1, RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, ADJ. AECS LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 037. …RESPONDENT THIS ITA IS FILED U/S.260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 4.3.15 PASSED IN ITA NO.79/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGONG QUESTION

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 for seeking deduction under section 54F even 1

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 for seeking deduction under section 54F even 1

ZAMEER MIRJA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA NO 1090/ 2006 BETWEEN SRI.ZAMEER MIRJA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT.NO.44, MAYFAIR APARTMENTS, NO.31, BERLIE STREET, LANGFORD TOWN, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.A.SHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

54F was disallowed. The assessee thereupon approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.10.2011 dismissed the appeal on merits. However, the interest levied under Section 234B of the Act was set aside. The assessee as well as the revenue filed the appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal