Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vii vs Gita Duggal on 29 August, 2014
9.2 In the instant case, it is demonstrated on behalf of the assessee that
necessary inquiries were made towards computation of long term capital
gain and claim of deduction under s.54F of the Act. The issue of eligibilit y
of claim of deduction was thus present to the mind of the AO. Relevant
documents were also shown to have been filed in the assessment
proceedings. We also simultaneousl y notice that the assessee has placed
reliance upon several judicial precedents namel y; CIT vs. Smt. K. G.
Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka); CIT vs. Gita Duggal
(2013) 357 ITR 153 (Delhi); CIT vs. Gita Duggal (2014) 52 taxmann.com
246 (SC), CIT vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP) and CIT vs. Smt.
V. R. Karpagam (2015) 373 ITR 127 (Madras) for the construction of
expression 'a residential house' in the context of Section 54 & 54F of the
Act. Different Courts noted above have echoed that expression 'a
residential house' would encompass different residential units located on
the different floors of the same building. On facts, we note that all the
three units are located on the different floors of the same structure and
purchased b y the assessee b y a common deed of conveyance. In the facts
and circumstances, pluralit y of opinion about the allowabilit y of deductio n
surel y exists even if it is presumed for a moment that view adopted b y the
AO in favour of the assessee is not singular or absolute. In the
circumstances, where the language couched in Section 54F of the Act has
been interpreted in a manner favourable to assessee and multiple residential
units were included within the sphere of Section 54F of the Act, we see no
wrong in the action of the AO in seeing the issue in a wider spectrum.
Thus, when the issue of eligibilit y of deduction under s.54F of the Act is
I T A N o . 6 4 3 / Ah d / 1 9 [ S m t . M i n a l
N a ya n S h a h v s . P r . C I T ] A . Y . 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 - 11 -
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, ... vs Syed Ali Adil on 20 December, 2012
9.2 In the instant case, it is demonstrated on behalf of the assessee that
necessary inquiries were made towards computation of long term capital
gain and claim of deduction under s.54F of the Act. The issue of eligibilit y
of claim of deduction was thus present to the mind of the AO. Relevant
documents were also shown to have been filed in the assessment
proceedings. We also simultaneousl y notice that the assessee has placed
reliance upon several judicial precedents namel y; CIT vs. Smt. K. G.
Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka); CIT vs. Gita Duggal
(2013) 357 ITR 153 (Delhi); CIT vs. Gita Duggal (2014) 52 taxmann.com
246 (SC), CIT vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP) and CIT vs. Smt.
V. R. Karpagam (2015) 373 ITR 127 (Madras) for the construction of
expression 'a residential house' in the context of Section 54 & 54F of the
Act. Different Courts noted above have echoed that expression 'a
residential house' would encompass different residential units located on
the different floors of the same building. On facts, we note that all the
three units are located on the different floors of the same structure and
purchased b y the assessee b y a common deed of conveyance. In the facts
and circumstances, pluralit y of opinion about the allowabilit y of deductio n
surel y exists even if it is presumed for a moment that view adopted b y the
AO in favour of the assessee is not singular or absolute. In the
circumstances, where the language couched in Section 54F of the Act has
been interpreted in a manner favourable to assessee and multiple residential
units were included within the sphere of Section 54F of the Act, we see no
wrong in the action of the AO in seeing the issue in a wider spectrum.
Thus, when the issue of eligibilit y of deduction under s.54F of the Act is
I T A N o . 6 4 3 / Ah d / 1 9 [ S m t . M i n a l
N a ya n S h a h v s . P r . C I T ] A . Y . 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 - 11 -
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt.V.R.Karpagam on 18 August, 2014
9.2 In the instant case, it is demonstrated on behalf of the assessee that
necessary inquiries were made towards computation of long term capital
gain and claim of deduction under s.54F of the Act. The issue of eligibilit y
of claim of deduction was thus present to the mind of the AO. Relevant
documents were also shown to have been filed in the assessment
proceedings. We also simultaneousl y notice that the assessee has placed
reliance upon several judicial precedents namel y; CIT vs. Smt. K. G.
Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka); CIT vs. Gita Duggal
(2013) 357 ITR 153 (Delhi); CIT vs. Gita Duggal (2014) 52 taxmann.com
246 (SC), CIT vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP) and CIT vs. Smt.
V. R. Karpagam (2015) 373 ITR 127 (Madras) for the construction of
expression 'a residential house' in the context of Section 54 & 54F of the
Act. Different Courts noted above have echoed that expression 'a
residential house' would encompass different residential units located on
the different floors of the same building. On facts, we note that all the
three units are located on the different floors of the same structure and
purchased b y the assessee b y a common deed of conveyance. In the facts
and circumstances, pluralit y of opinion about the allowabilit y of deductio n
surel y exists even if it is presumed for a moment that view adopted b y the
AO in favour of the assessee is not singular or absolute. In the
circumstances, where the language couched in Section 54F of the Act has
been interpreted in a manner favourable to assessee and multiple residential
units were included within the sphere of Section 54F of the Act, we see no
wrong in the action of the AO in seeing the issue in a wider spectrum.
Thus, when the issue of eligibilit y of deduction under s.54F of the Act is
I T A N o . 6 4 3 / Ah d / 1 9 [ S m t . M i n a l
N a ya n S h a h v s . P r . C I T ] A . Y . 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 - 11 -
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt K G Rukminiamma on 27 August, 2010
9.2 In the instant case, it is demonstrated on behalf of the assessee that
necessary inquiries were made towards computation of long term capital
gain and claim of deduction under s.54F of the Act. The issue of eligibilit y
of claim of deduction was thus present to the mind of the AO. Relevant
documents were also shown to have been filed in the assessment
proceedings. We also simultaneousl y notice that the assessee has placed
reliance upon several judicial precedents namel y; CIT vs. Smt. K. G.
Rukminiamma (2011) 331 ITR 211 (Karnataka); CIT vs. Gita Duggal
(2013) 357 ITR 153 (Delhi); CIT vs. Gita Duggal (2014) 52 taxmann.com
246 (SC), CIT vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP) and CIT vs. Smt.
V. R. Karpagam (2015) 373 ITR 127 (Madras) for the construction of
expression 'a residential house' in the context of Section 54 & 54F of the
Act. Different Courts noted above have echoed that expression 'a
residential house' would encompass different residential units located on
the different floors of the same building. On facts, we note that all the
three units are located on the different floors of the same structure and
purchased b y the assessee b y a common deed of conveyance. In the facts
and circumstances, pluralit y of opinion about the allowabilit y of deductio n
surel y exists even if it is presumed for a moment that view adopted b y the
AO in favour of the assessee is not singular or absolute. In the
circumstances, where the language couched in Section 54F of the Act has
been interpreted in a manner favourable to assessee and multiple residential
units were included within the sphere of Section 54F of the Act, we see no
wrong in the action of the AO in seeing the issue in a wider spectrum.
Thus, when the issue of eligibilit y of deduction under s.54F of the Act is
I T A N o . 6 4 3 / Ah d / 1 9 [ S m t . M i n a l
N a ya n S h a h v s . P r . C I T ] A . Y . 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 - 11 -
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 54EC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commr.Of Income Tax,Simla vs M/S Green World Corporation on 6 May, 2009
(ii) the error must be such that it is prejudicial to the interests of the
Revenue. However, an erroneous order does not necessaril y mean an order
with which the Pr.CIT is unable to agree. The AO while passing an order
of assessment, performs judicial functions. An order of assessment passed
b y the AO cannot be interfered onl y because an another view is also
possible on the issue as held in CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation (2009)
181 Taxman 111 (SC). If in given facts and circumstances of the case, two
I T A N o . 6 4 3 / Ah d / 1 9 [ S m t . M i n a l
N a ya n S h a h v s . P r . C I T ] A . Y . 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 - 10 -