SMT Y MANJULA REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2010 inter alia held that the assessee has not purchased the asset, in respect of which the 5 claim under Section 54F of the Act has been made and the assessee without prejudice had re-worked the amount of cost of acquisition of new asset, which was reduced

PROF. P.N. SHETTY vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The

property held by him and out of the sale consideration received by him, he deposited a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- in the Capital Gain Account Scheme, 1988. A return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed on 14th July, 2013 by claiming exemption under Section 54F of the said Act. 3. The appellant purchased

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

Appeal is allowed;

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

Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 19611. Learned AO2 rejected the deduction on the premise that assessee owned more than one residential house. The CIT(A)3 allowed assessee’s appeal on the ground that the properties

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

In the result, order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

house property to the extent of Rs.88,98,970/-. The Assessing Officer held that 4 investment made by the assessee does not fall within purview of Section 54F of the Act and disallowed the claim and added the amount to the returned income. 3

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

3. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has framed the following substantial questions of law: 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 of the act even though the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT HEMA KRISHNAMURTHY

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

3 Nagar which prohibits assessee to make claim under section 54F?". "2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the order passed under section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax was not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue when the proceedings of the Commissioner under

M/S MYPOL POLYMERS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

3 Nagar which prohibits assessee to make claim under section 54F?". "2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the order passed under section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax was not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue when the proceedings of the Commissioner under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GREGORY MATHIAS

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 54F when the fact that the assessee owns seven flats on which income from House Property has been offered has been placed on record? 3

COMMISSIONER OF vs. MR VINAY MISHRA

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 54F of the Income Tax Act in respect of investment made in the house property in USA? 3 2. Facts

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

3) to Section 48. 9. Though in the definition of ‘indexed cost of acquisition’, the word used are, “in which the asset was held by the assessee” a harmonious reading of Sections 48 and 49 makes it clear that, for the purpose of ‘Indexed Cost of Acquisition’, it has to be understood as the first year in which the previous

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI R SRINIVAS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’). It is not disputed that after selling the property, within three years, the entire sale amount had been utilized for purchase of land and construction of residential house. 3

MRS RAHANA SIRAJ vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

3 - expenses incurred to make the residential house habitable is entitled to benefit under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but not any additions made to the newly acquired building. 2. The assessee is an individual. Assessee was the owner of immovable property

SRI ABDUL GAFFAR S/O SRI ABDUL RAHIM vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

3. This court admitted the appeal and accepted the questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal for consideration. 4. After hearing both the sides, precisely the following questions of law would arise for consideration: “Whether the investment of net sale consideration towards expansion/remodeling of an existing residential house would enable the assessee to seek exemption under Section

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

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

house property. D.- Profits and gains of business or profession. E.- Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- 15 Salaries. 28. Profits and gains of business or profession 1The following income shall be chargeable to income- tax under the head" Profits and gains of business or profession",- (i) the profits and gains of any business or profession which

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This Bench.

housing complex. The firm purchased land bearing Sy.No.13/1, Jakkasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 13.5.1987 for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. Another reconstitution took place on 1.7.1991 by which Sri L.P.Jain retired from the firm and Smt. Pushpa Jain and Smt. Shree Jain were inducted as partners. The firm was reconstituted

ZAMEER MIRJA vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

house in the assessing year 1996-1997 and the net capital gain from the same is Rs.1,38,17,596/-. The assessee had entered into an agreement with one Sri.Surat Prasad for the purchase of property at Koramangala and had paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as advance. From out of the sale realisation of the property sold

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

3) What is the frequency of such purchases and disposal in that particular item? If purchase and sale are frequent, or there are substantial transactions in that item, it would indicate trade. Habitual dealing in that particular item is indicative of intention of trade. Similarly, ratio between the purchases and sales and the holdings may show whether the assessee

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

3) What is the frequency of such purchases and disposal in that particular item? If purchase and sale are frequent, or there are substantial transactions in that item, it would indicate trade. Habitual dealing in that particular item is indicative of intention of trade. Similarly, ratio between the purchases and sales and the holdings may show whether the assessee