DY CIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. MRS. NITTA VINODKUMAR JATIYA , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(1) Vs. Mrs. Nitta Vinodkumar Room No. 676B, 6Th Jatiya, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), Mk Road, Mumbai – 91, Marine Lines, 400020. Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Accpj8343D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Sanjiv Jain. Dr Respondent By : Mr.Snehal Shah. C A. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

disallowed to the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to allow the benefit as per provisions of section 54B

NAKUL AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

disallow the claim merely because the flats were purchased by two separate agreements. 4.6. So long as the house is used by the assessee as one single unit, though by conversion, in our view, the exemption cannot be denied to the assessee under section 54F of the Act. There is nothing on record brought by the revenue other than arguing

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKUL AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

disallow the claim merely because the flats were purchased by two separate agreements. 4.6. So long as the house is used by the assessee as one single unit, though by conversion, in our view, the exemption cannot be denied to the assessee under section 54F of the Act. There is nothing on record brought by the revenue other than arguing

LATE. SMT. INDIRA J. VIKAMSY ,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT RG-22(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

54B of the Act amounting to Rs.21,25,000/- and disallowance of expenditure of Rs.4,91,496/- against the long term capital gain on sale of property. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition/disallowances on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate the fact that

MR COLATHUR N. RAM ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 34(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of what we have observed hereinabove

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

disallowed the claim for the cost of acquisition/construction on the sale of Bangalore property without any cogent reason. Mr. Colathur N. Ram 11. It transpires from the perusal of the assessment order that no documentary evidence in respect of the details with regard to the actual indexed cost of Bangalore property (Amos5) was submitted by the assessee during the assessment