Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing K.G. Vyas vs Seventh Income-Tax Officer on 6 January, 1986

Sri D. Anand Basappa vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 October, 2003

6. Learned Departmental Representative Smt. Archana Choudhary submitted that the facts of the case need to be noted. From the facts it is clear that though the assessee intended to merging two flats into one large apartment, the same was not done till filing of return of income. The two flats are occupied by two different families. Though the developer agreed to convert the flats into one large apartment, they were never merged. The decisions relied upon in the case of K.G. Vyas (supra) is on the peculiar facts of the case. In the said case there was a common kitchen and common ration card with the entire family and hence though there were four flats since they were living together exemption under Section 54 was granted in respect of investment in all these four apartments. Since intention of legislature is to provide exemption for one residential house and since the assessee acquired two such houses with different identical units due to separate sale deeds, separate municipal numbers, separate electric and water meters, etc. These two units cannot be considered as "a residential house."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 11 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Mr.Hemant Doshi, Mumbai vs Ito - 32(1)(5), Mumbai on 23 May, 2019

In the case of K. G. Vyas Vs ITO(1 986) 26TTJ(Bom)491 (1986)16 1TD195(Bom) it was held by Bombay Bench of Tribunal that "the assessee sold his flat and acquired four flats in the same building- two in the first floor and one each in the second and third floors. The assessee was living in these flats with his family with a common kitchen and a common ration card. It was held that the exemption under section 5 was available to the assessee since the condition that the assessee should have invested the sale proceeds in the purchase of a house for his own residence. It was observed that the fact that a future date the assessee might divide the properties among the members of his family was of no relevance. It was noted that the family consisted of ten members and therefore the acquisition of four flats in the same building was commensurate with the requirements of the assessee. The tribunal noticed the objection of the Revenue that the flats were on different floors and were 'self-contained residential units" but overruled the same on the ground that all of them were purchased in the assessee's name."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Warangal vs Gyana Kumari Rojanala , Warangal on 30 August, 2021

The decision in Ms.Suseela M.Jhaveri's case (supra) holding that only one residential house should be given the relief under section 54 does not appear to be correct and we disapprove of it. We agree with the interpretation placed on section 54 by the High Court of Kamataka in D. Ananda Basappa's case (supra) and Smt. K. G. Rukminiamma's case (supra) and the decisions of the Mumbai, Chennai and Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in K.G. Vyas (supra), P.e. Ramakrishna, HUF (supra) and Prakash Bhutani (supra). We therefore hold that the CIT (Appeals) was correct in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal rightly confirmed the decision of the CIT (Appeals).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Income-Tax Officer vs Shri P.C. Ramakrishna, Huf on 28 July, 2006

The reasons stated by the Assessee for acquiring the ground floor is that the Assessee's mother who is entitled to be provided with accommodation by the Assessee is to stay in the property and she was finding it difficult to stay in the upper floor due to her old age and health. The Assessee's mother is staying in the ground floor and they are having common kitchen on ground floor flat and there is no kitchen on third floor flat. These flats fall under one building i.e. ground floor and third floor. The desire of the Assessee is that these two flats are to be used as one house as it is seen from the case law of the Tribunal of the Bombay Bench in the case of K.G. Vyas (supra). The Tribunal allowed the claim of the Assessee Under Section 54 of the Act by holding that since all the four apartments were in one building though on different floors under occupation of the same family. Further it was held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 19 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ito vs P.C. Ramakrishna (Huf) on 28 July, 2006

The reasons stated by the assessee for acquiring the ground floor is that the assessees mother who is entitled to be provided with accommodation by the assessee is to stay in the property and she was finding it difficult to stay on the upper floor due to her old age and health. The assessees mother is staying on the ground floor and they are having common kitchen on ground floor flat and there is no kitchen on third floor flat. These flats fall under one building, i.e., ground floor and third floor. The desire of the assessee is that these two flats are to be used as one house as it is seen from the case law of the Tribunal of the Bombay Bench in the case of K.G. Vyas (supra). The Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 54 of the Act by holding that since all the four apartments were in one building though on different floors under occupation of the same family. Further it was held as under
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Gulshanbanoo R. Mukhi vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 January, 2002

14. The learned counsel contended that the matter has to be looked into from the realities of Bombay where availability of a flat of your choice is not certain and there are instances where one has to buy one small flat on a particular floor and the other on the other floor or in some cases buy one flat in one building and the other in the adjoining building. The learned counsel contended that this plea finds support from Section 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act, Section 33(1) of the ED Act, Section 23(3) of the IT Act, General Clauses Act, CBDT circular, dictionary meaning and legislative intention and the scheme. The learned counsel further contended that though the assessee has let out the flat on the 8th floor in August, 1998, still, the same does not alter the legal position as the assessee is complying with the substantive provisions of Section 54(1) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of K.G. Vyas (supra) wherein number of flats were considered to be one house.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, ... vs Syed Ali Adil on 20 December, 2012

The decision in Suseela M.Jhaveri's case (5 supra) holding that only one residential house should be given the relief under Section 54 does not appear to be correct and we disapprove of it. We agree with the interpretation placed on Section 54 by the High Court of Karnataka in D.Ananda Basappa's case (1 supra) and Smt. K.G.Rukminiamma's case (6 supra) and the decisions of the Mumbai, Chennai and Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in K.G.Vyas (2 supra), P.C.Ramakrishna, HUF (3 supra) and Prakash Bhutani (4 supra). We therefore hold that the CIT (Appeals) was correct in setting aside the order of the assessing officer and the Tribunal rightly confirmed the decision of the CIT (Appeals).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 49 - G Raghuram - Full Document

Vishal Dutt, Navi Mumbai vs Assessee on 16 March, 2016

In the case of K.G. Vyas v. ITO 16 ITD 195 (Bom), the Mumbai- Tribunal allowed exemption in respect of investments in four flats where the tax-payer purchased four flats in same building; two flats were on 1st floor and one flat each on 2nd and 3rd floor and the tax-payer was living in these flats with his big family with a common kitchen and common ration card, thus, the reasoning behind Tribunal's decision was common use of several flats.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next