BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

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.

8 results for “house property”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai328Delhi307Chennai203Bangalore177Hyderabad117Jaipur94Ahmedabad93Pune82Kolkata58Indore45Chandigarh43Visakhapatnam36Surat30Karnataka24Cochin24Nagpur23Raipur18Lucknow16Patna13Cuttack12Rajkot12Jodhpur10Agra9Amritsar8Jabalpur6Ranchi5Dehradun5Calcutta4Telangana4Allahabad3SC2Punjab & Haryana1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 1479Section 143(3)9Section 1486Section 54F5Addition to Income5Section 2634Reopening of Assessment4Penalty3Section 271(1)2Section 168

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

ITA 433/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmed Lone (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 143(6)Section 147Section 50C

property was a capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the Income tax Act and duly held by the assessee for last 17 years. Thus, the addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 5: The AO has denied the exemption u/s. 54F of the Income

2
Section 143(6)2
Deduction2

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs. SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

ITA 430/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmed Lone (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 143(6)Section 147Section 50C

property was a capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the Income tax Act and duly held by the assessee for last 17 years. Thus, the addition made by the AO on account of Short Term Capital Gain is deleted. Ground of appeal No. 5: The AO has denied the exemption u/s. 54F of the Income

SH. LALIT DEEWAN,JAMMU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 453/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 453/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. C J S Nanda (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 144Section 54F

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 22.01.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The facts of the case in-so-far as are relevant are that the assessee sold an immovable property, being a plot of land (at Gattha Sohana, Haryana) during the 2 Lalit Dewan v. Dy. CIT relevant year

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 6/ASR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54F

property. Accordingly, the assessee purchased a residential house amount to Rs.35,64,000/- on dated 16.02.2010. The assesseehad contravened of provision of 54F of the Act for not investing the amount within two years from the date of receiving the payment therefore, the benefit of section

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 306/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass , DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 168Section 263Section 271(1)

Housing Company Ltd. Mumbai, and the cost of which @ Rs.4500/- per sq. ft. was Rs.1,01,25,000/- and therefore, as per the above said tripartite agreement, the assessee was to receive total consideration of Rs.1,83,75,000/-. The assessee received a part payment of Rs.15,00,000/- on 24.02.2007 and another payment of Rs.18,00,000/- was received

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 591/ASR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass , DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 168Section 263Section 271(1)

Housing Company Ltd. Mumbai, and the cost of which @ Rs.4500/- per sq. ft. was Rs.1,01,25,000/- and therefore, as per the above said tripartite agreement, the assessee was to receive total consideration of Rs.1,83,75,000/-. The assessee received a part payment of Rs.15,00,000/- on 24.02.2007 and another payment of Rs.18,00,000/- was received

SH. RAGHUNATH SAHAI PURI(DECD),PATHANKOT vs. THE DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATHANKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 633/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 633/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Alok Kumar CIT-DR
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

House Building Society Ltd., Mohali (facts discussed in detail supra) and arising to the appellant was disclosed in the revised return of the income by the appellant on 07.01.2010 but vide order u/s 143(3) the assessment of LTCG has been framed at RS.1,75,36,744/-. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by me in appeal

SHRI SUKHEV SINGH ,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BATHINDA

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

ITA 146/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 64Section 69A

house on this benami plot with his own money out of the sale proceeds of the agricultural land. So, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54F of the Act. This is further supported by the fact that the assessee was present in the Tehsil for the registration of purchase deed not the wife. 9. That in any case