Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Section 54F in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 54EC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 240 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 237 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sri Sambandam Udaykumar on 15 February, 2012
12.1 The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income
Tax vs. Sambandam Udaykumar reported in 19 taxmann.com 17 has held as under:
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs L. Raghu Kumar on 21 March, 1982
12.2 We also draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble High Court
of Bombay in the case Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Girish L Ragha reported in
69 taxmann.com 95 where it was held as under;
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Sardarmal Kothari on 17 June, 2008
The assessee was required to get the house and
occupancy certificate on or before 1-12-2011. But however, the assessee got the
occupancy certificate of the property on 17-1-2014. The Tribunal further noted that
the assessee submitted the documentary evidence to show that after purchasing
the property, there was a civil suit filed by the other parties and the assessee could
not complete the construction and the licence for constructing the house was
accordingly delayed. The Tribunal further noted that Commissioner (Appeals) in his
order relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v.
Sardarmal Kothari [2008] 302 ITR 286 wherein, it is held that in order to get the
benefit under section 54, the assessee need not complete the construction of the
house and occupy the same. It is further noted that the assessee has invested the
money and the occupancy certificate is delayed which is beyond the control of the
assessee then the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54 of the Act.
The Tribunal as such found that the assessee was entitled for deduction under
section 54 and consequently, dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Considering the
said facts and the ratio of the judgment referred to herein above, it is to be found
that there is no substantial question of law which arises for consideration in the
present appeal under section 260A. Hence, no case is made out by the appellant
for interference in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal stands accordingly
rejected."