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.

5 results for “disallowance”+ Section 54Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai91Kolkata16Delhi9Pune7Jaipur7Bangalore5Chennai4Nagpur4Karnataka4Surat4Indore2Visakhapatnam1Calcutta1Chandigarh1Cuttack1SC1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 54F17Section 54B4Exemption3Section 143(2)2Long Term Capital Gains2Deduction2Capital Gains2Disallowance2

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA NISHTALA,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 164/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayan, JCIT(DR)
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

disallowance made, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) observed that assessee sold residential house on 20/07/2012 and claimed exemption under section 54 for assessment year 2013-14 for investment in purchase/conception of Villa at APR, Bangalore. Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that as per provisions of section 54, the construction of the house

SHRI. MALLAPPA SHARANAPPA UDNOOR,GULBARGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 74/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 144Section 45Section 54Section 54B

disallowed only on the ground that the assessee did not deposit the capital gain in the capital gain account. The learned Authorised Representative has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samandam Udaykumar 345 ITR 389 as well as the decision dt. 15.2.2016 in 5 the case

SRI. H.R. DIWAKA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 771/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234Section 54ESection 54F

disallowance of Rs.2,37,500/- out of brokerage and commission, holding that the aforesaid expenses are not attributable to the sale of sites under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled. 5. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in holding that the appellant is not entitled to exemption u/s.54F

M/S. SASKEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Income chargeable under the head capital gain accrues to an Assessee the moment, an Assessee effects transfer of a capital Asset. Sec.2

SMT.KONDAMMA ,BANGALORE ` vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 455/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Kondamma, No. 122/2, 6Th Main, The Income Tax Opp Srs Printer, Officer, Kammagondanhalli, Vs. Ward – 6 (2) (4), Jalahalli West, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 015. Pan: Atypk2334A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 54F

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H is chargeable to income tax under the head 'capital gains' and shall be deemed to be income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The aforesaid sections which form part of section 54 of the Act are cases where capital gain on transfer of capital asset not to be charged