“Section 54(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 54Section 54(4)5 judgments

SHAZIYA MOAZZAM ALI KHAN,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A), MUMBAI

ITA 6302/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Shaziya Moazzam Ali Khan The Cit(A), Ward Flat No. 71, A Wing, St 19(3)(1), Piramal Andrew Apartment, Moraland Vs. Chamber, Parel Road, Mumbai-400 008. Mumbai-400 012. Pan : Amnpk2105R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RaiFor Respondent: Shri Amir H. Bohra, CA

Section 250Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)Section 54(4)Section 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

retain the uninvested money but was to invest in the construction of property within the period stipulated in section 54F(1), then section 54(4) of the Act is not at all attracted. The appellant has kept the proceeds of sale of original in savings bank account of 3 Bank

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

ITA 376/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'बी' बेंच, हैदराबाद\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nHyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2695/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“E” BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSHRI PRABHASH

SANA SHAH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANIPAT

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1702/DEL/2022[2018=-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasana Shah, Vs. Ito, 744-745, Model Town, Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bopps2855R

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi S. Mann, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 28Section 5Section 54(4)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

view that interest part of the enhanced compensation amounting to Rs. 5,97,28,560/- was taxable and further extending the benefit of Section 54(4) of the Act of deduction of 50% proposed additions. However, addition of Rs. 2,71,49,345/- was made accepting the submission of assessee

DR. SHEELA PUTTABUDDI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 293/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvoicateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 54

which the said undertaking is shifted. The Legislature consciously has not used the expression ‘towards the purchase of plant and machinery’ as in Section 54(4) of the Act in contrast to Section 54(2) of the Act wherein the words ‘towards’ is used before the word ‘purchase’. The expression