Chandramohan Manohar Potdar v. ACIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors. 2001 TaxPub(DT) 1637 (SC)
REFERRED Shankerlal Nebhumal Uttamchandani v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2001 TaxPub(DT) 1637 (Guj-HC)
REFERRED R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax 1995 TaxPub(DT) 0403 (Mad-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersITA No. 886/Mum/2017 2020 TaxPub(DT) 1879 (Mum-Trib) : (2020) 184 ITD 0907 : (2020) 208 TTJ 1112 IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH M. BALAGANESH, A.M. & RAVISH SOOD, J.M. Chandramohan Manohar Potdar v. ACIT ITA No. 886/Mum/2017 20 February, 2020 Appellant by : Rajesh P. Shah, AR Respondent by : Kumar Padmapani Bora, DR ORDER *Ravish Sood, J.M.* The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-33, Mumbai, dt. 8-11-2016, which in turn arises from the order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ), dt. nil for assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disallowing the claim made under section 54F of the Act of Rs. 2,00,04,970. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disallowing the claim under section 54F of the Act without fully appreciating the facts. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly arrived at conclusion that the Appellant was owning two premises on the date of sale of land, though, one of the premises was not ready for occupation and hence wrongly disallowed claim under section 54F of the Act. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersITA No. 886/Mum/2017
2020 TaxPub(DT) 1879 (Mum-Trib) : (2020) 184 ITD 0907 : (2020) 208 TTJ 1112

IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH

M. BALAGANESH, A.M. & RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

Chandramohan Manohar Potdar v. ACIT

ITA No. 886/Mum/2017

20 February, 2020

Appellant by : Rajesh P. Shah, AR

Respondent by : Kumar Padmapani Bora, DR

ORDER

Ravish Sood, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-33, Mumbai, dt. 8-11-2016, which in turn arises from the order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ), dt. nil for assessment year 2013-14.

The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disallowing the claim made under section 54F of the Act of Rs. 2,00,04,970.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in disallowing the claim under section 54F of the Act without fully appreciating the facts.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly arrived at conclusion that the Appellant was owning two premises on the date of sale of land, though, one of the premises was not ready for occupation and hence wrongly disallowed claim under section 54F of the Act.