SHRI. NAVIN JOLLY vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

house property during Assessment year 2006-07 and is therefore, not eligible to claim exemption by invoking proviso (a)(i) and (b)to Section 54F (1). The assessing officer further recorded a finding that properties owned by the appellant are 5 residential apartments. Accordingly, exemption under Section 54F of the Act was denied. 4

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

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

Appeal is allowed;

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

4. In addition to the above residential properties, the assessee has a residential property at 90B, Boloor Village, Mangalore purchased on 26.2.2010. This property has been explained as part of Chilimbi property by the assessee. As per the purchase deed of the property, it is a separate property situated on the land of 905 cent with residential building bearing D.No

SMT Y MANJULA REDDY vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

4. The assessee thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 24.09.2013 inter alia held that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54F of the Act to the extent of 50% of the cost of acquisition of the new property, which was estimated at Rs.91,58,083/-, which comes to Rs.45

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. HOSAGRAHAR

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

property outside India which cannot be said that assesse has satisfied the conditions set out in the said section?" I.T.A. NO.601 OF 2019 5 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances to the case, the order passed by the Tribunal can be said as perverse in nature since the Tribunal has relied upon amended provisions of section 54F

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GREGORY MATHIAS

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

house properties were held as stock in trade? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in allowing the deduction under Section 54F

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF vs. MR VINAY MISHRA

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

54F of the Income Tax Act in respect of investment made in the house property in USA? 3 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that assessee is a Director of M/s Marketics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd Bangalore. The assessee filed the return of income on 20.07.2009 for the Assessment year 2009-10 declaring total income

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

4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that assessee owned more than two residential houses viz., Flat No.2034 at High Palace Point and House No.8 in R.T.Nagar and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 54F of the Act. It is further submitted that Commissioner of Income Tax had rightly invoked the powers under Section

M/S MYPOL POLYMERS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE

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

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that assessee owned more than two residential houses viz., Flat No.2034 at High Palace Point and House No.8 in R.T.Nagar and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 54F of the Act. It is further submitted that Commissioner of Income Tax had rightly invoked the powers under Section

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

4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the capital asset was acquired by the assessee under a Will on 30.10.2006 and therefore the cost inflation index for the year 2006 would be applicable in determining the cost of acquisition? 5. Whether

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI R SRINIVAS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

property, within three years, the entire sale amount had been utilized for purchase of land and construction of residential house. 3. The case of the Revenue is that since the sale amount had not been deposited in the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme, the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 54F of the Act. 4

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

54F of the Act for the assessment year 2000 reads as under: 54-F : Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a 6 residential house(hereafter in this section

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

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

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 bearing No.96, Brigade Road, Civil Station, Bangalore. When the said property was sold, she received a sum of Rs.92,80,350/- towards

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Sections 54 and 54F of the Act, then the Assessing Officer shall grant the exemption.” 4. The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal after considering the respective case of the assessee has found that the income derived by the assessee from the flat was treated as income from house property

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI T V VENUGOPAL

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Sections 54 and 54F of the Act, then the Assessing Officer shall grant the exemption.” 4. The aforesaid shows that the Tribunal after considering the respective case of the assessee has found that the income derived by the assessee from the flat was treated as income from house property