Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

171 results for “capital gains”+ House Propertyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,114 Delhi885 Jaipur319 Bangalore277 Chennai269 Hyderabad234 Ahmedabad171 Pune161 Chandigarh148 Kolkata136 Cochin123 Indore106 Raipur71 Nagpur59 Surat49 Visakhapatnam41 Rajkot37 Patna36 Lucknow33 Guwahati24 Agra21 Cuttack19 Amritsar19 Dehradun12 Jabalpur10 Jodhpur10 Allahabad9 Ranchi7 Panaji2 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 54F105 Section 143(3)94 Addition to Income78 Section 14754 Deduction49 Section 26348 Disallowance43 Section 14A37 Section 14836

SHRI JIGNESH JAYSUKHLAL GHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT CIRLCE-4(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 324/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

House Property, Capital Gain and Other sources. For the Asst. Year 2013-14, assessee filed its belated Return of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

Showing 1–20 of 171 · Page 1 of 9

...

Capital Gains27

ITA 1366/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. UktiFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ukti

Section 49Section 54Section 54E

property has been placed on record. 24. Section 54(1) of the Act provides that: where the capital gain arises from transfer of a long-term capital asset being a residential house

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 54F

capital gains earned in a new residential house. The Ld.PCIT found the claim to be not allowable since he found the assessee to have contravened the provisions of the said section by owning more than one residential house property

ATUL GOVINDJI SHROFF,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1443/AHD/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 54F

capital gain of Rs. Nil as the assessee has reinvested the consideration in a residential property at Colaba, Mumbai u/s. 54F of the Act of Rs. 14,14,55,783/-. On verification of the claim of the assessing officer held that the assessee already owned two residential properties namely (i) House

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD vs. JHAVERI SANDEEP BIPINCHANDRA (HUF), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 805/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2016-17 Jhaveri Sandeep Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bipinchandra (Huf), Ward-5(3)(1), 21, Crest Nutan Laxmi Soc., Ahmedabad 9Th Road, Jvpd Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400049 Pan : Aachj 0855 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Pune-12 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 24.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Department Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Income Of Rs. 54,49,539/- As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income.” 3. The Issue Raised In The Above Ground Relates To The Short Term Capital Gain Returned By The Assessee, On The Transactions Of Dealing In Shares, As Ito Vs Jhaveri Sandeep Bipinchandra Huf Ay : 2016-17 2

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR

capital gains in a residential house property. The facts of the case reveal that the reason for the denial of exemption

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2281/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

house property. Accordingly, the addition is confirmed and ground of appeal is dismissed. The appellant has also raised the contention that the appellant should be allowed deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital u/s. 24(b) of the Act. The AO has categorically mentioned in the order that the assessee has not furnished the relevant certificate from bank

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1076/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

house property. Accordingly, the addition is confirmed and ground of appeal is dismissed. The appellant has also raised the contention that the appellant should be allowed deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital u/s. 24(b) of the Act. The AO has categorically mentioned in the order that the assessee has not furnished the relevant certificate from bank

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 511/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

house property. Accordingly, the addition is confirmed and ground of appeal is dismissed. The appellant has also raised the contention that the appellant should be allowed deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital u/s. 24(b) of the Act. The AO has categorically mentioned in the order that the assessee has not furnished the relevant certificate from bank

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1075/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

house property. Accordingly, the addition is confirmed and ground of appeal is dismissed. The appellant has also raised the contention that the appellant should be allowed deduction in respect of interest on borrowed capital u/s. 24(b) of the Act. The AO has categorically mentioned in the order that the assessee has not furnished the relevant certificate from bank

VIPUL KAMAL PRAKASH SUD,SIDHPUR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 841/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

house property and capital gain computed by the assessee was in respect of the entire house property and not for the basement

SHRI ALPESH NAVINBHAI BAROT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 927/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

capital gain account scheme before the due date of filing of return. Further, there was no evidence brought on record that the construction of the new property was completed within a period of three years from the date of sale of original asset and the assessee had also not verified that he did not own more than one house

MR. JOBANJI THAKOR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO. WARD-3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 264/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.264/Ahd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nMr. Jobanji Thakor\nThe ITO\nF-40, Abugiri Society\nबनाम / Ward-3(2)(2)\nTal. Daskroi, Jagatpur\nv/s.\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad - 382 470\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AKNPT 2930 M\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nAssessee by:\nShri Mehul K. Patel, AR\nRevenue by :\nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of

For Appellant: \nShri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: \nShri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

property\nLess: Indexed cost of acquisition (as per DVO report dated\n26.12.2017)\nLess: Cost of transfer (Stamp duty, brokerage, legal\nexpenses, etc.)\nNet capital gain before exemption\nLess: Deduction under Section 54B (Investment in\nagricultural land)\nLess: Deduction under Section 54F (Investment in\nresidential house

JCIT(OSD), CIR-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE (INDIA) LTD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

property, liabilities and issues of the resulting company. Under section 47(vib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a demerger involving transfer of capital assets by the demerged company to the resulting company (Indian Company). will not attract levy of capital gain tax. Similarly, under section 47(vid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if there is an issue

RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA PVT. LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS RECKITT BENCKISER HEALTHCARE INDIA LTD.,),HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

property, liabilities and issues of the resulting company. Under section 47(vib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a demerger involving transfer of capital assets by the demerged company to the resulting company (Indian Company). will not attract levy of capital gain tax. Similarly, under section 47(vid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if there is an issue

SH. RAJESH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1592/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: None

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C(2)Section 54Section 80C

house property, capital gains and income from other sources. The return of income for the year under consideration was not originally

BHANUPRASAD MAGANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 7/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 54F

property and not at the time of sale. The partnership was formed after a gap of about five years and the business was solely to develop land. Thus there was no intention when the land was purchased for earning profit and relied upon Karnataka High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Kishan House Builders Association 117 taxmann.com

ARJUN DAS JASUJA,JABALPUR vs. THE CIT (IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 796/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.796/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Arjun Das Jasuja The Cit (It & Tp) बनाम/ 16, Nayagaon, Rampur Circle-2 V/S. Jebalpur Ahmedabad Madhya Pradesh – 462 008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aehpj 3059 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapan Usrethe, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nand Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55(1)(b)

capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified in sub- section (1) of section 49, by the previous owner, but does not include any expenditure which is deductible in computing the income chargeable under the head "Interest on securities", "Income from house property", "Profits and gains

VIRAL RAJENDRA PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-1., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raj Deep Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54ESection 54F

Capital Gain u/s.54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.6,82,74,989/-. 4. The Ld.DR was unable to controvert the contentions of the assessee either on facts or on law. He fairly agreed that as per the provisions of law, the assessee is provided a time period of three years for the construction of a house property

NIKSHAL POPERTIES PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chintan Shah and Jigar Shah purchased the land from the Sakar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. for Rs.8.50 crores and sold it subsequently after 4 days to M/s. Ardor Overseas Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.44 crores; that set off of the short term capital gain

ARDOR OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2785/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chintan Shah and Jigar Shah purchased the land from the Sakar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. for Rs.8.50 crores and sold it subsequently after 4 days to M/s. Ardor Overseas Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.44 crores; that set off of the short term capital gain