RAJANI SHIVAJI GHADGE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD, 22(3)(6), MUMBAI

ITA 7020/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 January 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the property sold was a Long-Term Capital Asset as it was constructed in 2010 and sold in 2016. It further held that the assessee was entitled to the claim of exemption under Section 54 of the Act, as the necessary conditions were verified during the remand proceedings. The AO was directed to allow the claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which restricted the addition from Rs. 51,48,592/- to Rs. 10 lakhs concerning the sale of an immoveable property. The AO had brought to tax the entire sale amount as Short Term Capital Gain, including an interest component. The assessee contended that the property was a Long-Term Capital Asset and her share of the sale consideration was Rs. 10 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the property sold was a Long-Term Capital Asset and if the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 03-09-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment application filed. Considering the same and the fact that the appeal was filed way back in October 2025, it was decided that no useful purpose

2 would be served in adjourning the matter any further and to decide the matter based on material available on record.

3.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that assessment in this case was

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →