Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)
Girish Mohan, Haryana vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon on 14 July, 2023 cites

Dcit, Circle- 4(1), New Delhi vs Kanwal Mohan Singh Sehgal, New Delhi on 25 August, 2022

In the case of DCIT Vs. Kanwal Mohan Singh (supra) the Tribunal has relied on the order ITAT Jaipur in the case of Shyam Sunder Makhija Vs. ITO 38 ITR 125 wherein, it was held that the farmhouse is also a residential house and section 54F does not put any rider with direction in respect investment in acquisition of land appurtenant to the building will not qualify.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Narendra Mohan Bagroy on 4 March, 2004

1. ACIT Vs Kanwal Mohan Singh ITA No-500/D/2019 order dated 06.07.2022- ii. CIT vs. Shri Narendra Mohan Uniyali, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal held in ITA No. 1624/Del/2009 dated 31.08.2009 c. It is next submitted that the new investment was in fact in a residential house has been proved by assessee with following documents i. Page number-6 site plan approved by Rajasthan State Govt Clearly mentioned character of land is residential -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Patna Cites 23 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Acit vs Smt. Pushpa Devi Jain [Alongwith Ita ... on 28 December, 2004

11. Further, the assessee has also relied on the order of the coordinate bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal ITA No. 64/Del/2011 wherein it was held that when the land is purchased and building the constructed thereon, it is not necessary that such construction should be on the entire plot of land, meaning thereby that there is no denial of exemption on investment in a part of the land which is appurtenant to the building and on which no construction is made only because construction was made on the first plot of land, the exemption claimed in respect of investment made in adjacent plot of land cannot be declined when all the other conditions as per requirement u/s 54F of the Act were satisfied.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 33 - Cited by 188 - Full Document

The Income Tax Appellate ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Ofincome-Tax ... on 17 January, 1996

Ld counsel placing reliance on the order of coordinate bench of the Tribunal Mahavir Vs. CIT (supra) submitted that even non residential use of residential house would not render a property ineligible for benefit/ deduction u/s 54F of the Act if it otherwise is a residential house and the assessee was found to have constructed a residential house whatever might be the use it had been put to. We are in agreement with the said contention of ld counsel of assessee based on order of coordinate bench of the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 13 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Shyam Sunder Mukhija vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 April, 1991

In the case of DCIT Vs. Kanwal Mohan Singh (supra) the Tribunal has relied on the order ITAT Jaipur in the case of Shyam Sunder Makhija Vs. ITO 38 ITR 125 wherein, it was held that the farmhouse is also a residential house and section 54F does not put any rider with direction in respect investment in acquisition of land appurtenant to the building will not qualify.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd., Cuttack vs Jcit, Range-1, Cuttack on 8 October, 2020

In the case of Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs. JCIT 101 TTJ 1078 it was held that while non- residential use of residential house mere non-residential use would not render a property ineligible for benefit of section 54F of the Act, if it otherwise a residential house, and the assessee is found to have constructed a residential house, whatever might be the house it had been put to, the assessee can be said to have fulfilled the conditions envisaged u/s 54F of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Acit, Ajmer vs Late Shri Om Prakash Goyal Th. L/H, Ajmer on 10 January, 2018

In the light of the above factual position, we find ourselves agree with the contention of the ld counsel of the assessee based on the order of ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Om Prakash Goyal (supra) wherein, the Tribunal under similar facts and circumstances held that since all the conditions claiming exemption u/s 54F of the Act have been satisfied, therefore, it will futile exercise if the matter is sent back to the file of the AO particularly when all the details are placed on record from which it is established that assessee purchased the plot of land and have been constructed residential unit/ house for his use. The tribunal also held that the house constructed on agricultural land or on other land does not matter, but the fact mattes that the residential house is constructed. In the present case, the valuation report and other documentary evidence including change of land use (CLU) certificate issued by the Haryana Govt authorities and the certificate issued by Sarpanch of Village Biranwas, Tehsil Kotkasim Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan clearly reveals that the assessee has constructed residential buildings comprising of two rooms, kitchen, toilet having electricity and water connection and a borewell with a septic tank which was being used as residential unit. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the basis taken by the ld CIT(A) that in proportion to the size of plot/ land the constructed portion is very small and thus, the exemption benefit u/s 54F of the Act cannot be extended to the cost of land appurtenant to the house.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1