Mr Tarun Goyal, New Delhi vs Acit, Noida on 22 May, 2019
ii) Amit Agarwal vs. DCIT, 2016(11) TMI 596-ITAT KOLKATA.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.57 seconds)Documents citing
Akash Kumar Agarwal, Hyderabad, ... vs Dcit, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad, ... on 23 June, 2017
Gavireddygari Aparna Kalyani, ... vs Acit, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad on 28 February, 2023
o A Mahesh Reddy Vs The ACIT (Hyderabad) ITA No. 1236/Hyd/12
o Gyan Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT (Hyderabad) - 60 DTR 241
o Dhatri Constructions P.Ltd., Hyderabad Vs Dy. CommissionerIncome-tax
Central Circle 2, Hyderabad.
Rachita Agarwal, Hyderabad, Hyderabad vs Ito, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad on 15 June, 2018
3. Shri Vinay Kumar Agarwal Vs DCIT, in ITA No. 153/Hyd/2015.
Manoj Kumar Sabharwal, New Delhi vs Ito, Ward- 5(3), New Delhi on 16 October, 2017
In view of the decisions reported in Amit Gupta
vs DCIT 6 SOT 403 (Del.
Jagadishwar Rao Madhavaram, Hyd, ... vs Ito, Ward-11(5), Hyd, Hyderabad on 6 December, 2017
In the case of Raj Kumari Agarwal Vs. DCIT [150 ITD 597]
(Agra-Trib) the Co-ordinate Bench at Agra has held as under:
Dy.Cit, Circle-3(1),, Hyderabad vs Sri C.M. Ramesh, Hyderabad on 29 December, 2017
10.1 Ld. DR relied on the case of Amit Gupta (supra), in
which, the assessee has purchased a basement in the
residential building and there is no details of bed room, living
room or kitchen and only contains hall. According to the AO,
this is not meant to use for residential house. However, it was
held that the expression 'residential house' has not been
defined in the Act, the popular meaning of the word is a place
or building used for habitation of people, but, it is not
necessary that a person residing in the house to call it a
residential house, if it is capable of being used for the purpose
of residence, the requirement of section 54F is satisfied.
Accordingly, exemption u/s 54F was allowed. In this case, the
Bench answered the fact that the assessee did not actually
use property for his residence will not disentitle him to claim of
exemption u/s 54F and therefore, the facts in the said case
are distinguishable to the facts of the case in hand, hence, the
same is not applicable to the case under consideration.
1