Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)Arun Kumar Gupta, Income Tax vs Asodaria Gordhanbhai Ranchhodbhai ... on 29 December, 2025
10. The assessee, in support of its legal arguments, placed reliance on several
judicial precedents including the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in
CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa, 309 ITR 329, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Gita
4
ITA No.601/SRT/2023/AY 2017-18
Asodariya Gordhanbhai Ranchodbhai (HUF)
Duggal, 357 ITR 153, the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of
Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Patel (HUF) v. DCIT, in ITA No.3179/Ahd/2019, dated
12.12.2018 and some other decisions of the ITAT, Mumbai wherein exemption u/s
54/54F of the Act was allowed in cases of adjoining or multiple flats used as a single
residential unit. Relying upon these decisions, it was argued that the claim of the
assessee was squarely covered and the interpretation adopted by the AO was contrary
to settled principles.
Jiten K Shah, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax
5. On the other hand the ld. Counsel for the assessee while relying on the
order of the ld. CIT(A) further submits that the Tribunal in the immediately
preceding year i.e. for the assessment year 2004-05 on the appeal filed by
the revenue in DCIT vs. Shri Jiten K. Shah in ITA No.716/Mum/2008 dated
20.5.2009 upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee
on all the above issues except in respect of disallowance made under the
head business promotion expenses and gifts. He also placed on record the
copy of the said order of the Tribunal. He, therefore, submits that all the
issues may be decided accordingly.
1