Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.35 seconds)Section 54 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. M. Kalpagam on 18 March, 1996
15. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Smt. M. Kalpagam (cited supra)
has held that 'extent of construction is not decisive, and liberal interpretation
must be adopted'.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sanjay Mohan Uniyal on 13 November, 2018
17. The Delhi Bench in Addl CIT vs. Narendra Mohan Uniyal (cited supra)
held as follows:
Section 95 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs P. Nataraja Sastri on 29 April, 1975
CIT vs. Smt. M. Kalpagam in TCA No.984 of 1984
CIT vs. Smt. Sunita Aggarwal [2006] 284 ITR 20 (Delhi)
CIT vs. Kalyanaraman Nataraja [2017] 82 taxmann.com 93 (Chennai - Trib.)
Dcit, Circle- 4(1), New Delhi vs Kanwal Mohan Singh Sehgal, New Delhi on 25 August, 2022
DCIT vs. Kanwal Mohan Singh Sehgal in ITA No.500/Del/2019
Addl CIT vs. Narendra Mohan Uniyal in ITA No.1624/Del/2009
ACIT vs. Somchand Kanji in ITA No.1717/Bang/2016
Shri Harshad M. Thakkar (Gandhi), ... vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(1),, Ahmedabad on 21 January, 2019
12. On the other hand, the Inspector's report is brief, based on external
observation, photographs were taken from outside the compound and does not
negate existence of a residential structure inside. The reliance placed on
Harshad M. Thakkar v. DCIT is misplaced, as in that case no habitable
residential unit was proved to exist. In the present case, the assessee has
produced documentary, photographic, and local authority evidence establishing
the residential nature of the construction.