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

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

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

4 investment made by the assessee does not fall within purview of Section 54F of the Act and disallowed the claim

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 the claim and I.T.A. NO.601 OF 2019 4

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GREGORY MATHIAS

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in allowing the deduction under Section 54F to the assessee when the income Tax Act does not specify the nature of ownership whether held as asset or stock in trade?” 2. We have heard Mr.E.I.Sanmathi learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Revenue and Mr.A.Shankar

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. CIT appeals confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer, so also the Appellant 4

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

4. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue with regard to set off, of brought forward business loss and validity of the notice under Section 6 148 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 12.03.2008 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. The assessee thereupon

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

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 Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench - 3 - ITA No. 108 of 2020 though the conditions for claiming exemption under section 54F is not satisfied by the assessee since assessee

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 Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench - 3 - ITA No. 108 of 2020 though the conditions for claiming exemption under section 54F is not satisfied by the assessee since assessee