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.

14 results for “disallowance”+ Section 54Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai19Delhi18Bangalore14Kolkata8Jaipur7Agra6Pune5Karnataka5Indore5Chennai5Ahmedabad4Rajkot4Visakhapatnam2Hyderabad2Jodhpur2Chandigarh1Cochin1Cuttack1Raipur1SC1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 54G29Section 54F20Section 5411Capital Gains9Exemption9Deduction8Section 1476Section 1486Addition to Income6Disallowance

SHRI LINGARAJU BANGALORE LINGAIAH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2892/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. O.P Meena

For Appellant: Shri. Guru Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. S.T Seshadri, JCIT – DR
Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 54G

Section 54G w.r.t to acquisition of land is that it should be 'acquired for the purposes of his business in the said area' (i.e. other than urban area). The statute does not prescribe commencement of industrial production as a pre-condition for availing exemption under Sec 54G. Accordingly, the AO and CIT(A) both have misinterpreted the requirements for eligibility

5
Section 50C4
Section 54B4

M/S.FABSUN ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAILUR

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

ITA 1616/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Swapna Das, JCIT-DR
Section 54FSection 54GSection 54G(1)

disallowing claim of exemption of Rs.1,20,00,000/- claimed under section 54G of the Income Tax Act. 3. The ld.Commissioner

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GENEVA FINE PUNCH ENCLOSURES LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1560/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Lalit Kumardeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Geneva Industries Ltd., (Formerly Geneva Fine Punch Enclosures Ltd.),No.140/1, Pattandur Agrahara Village, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru-560 066. … Respondent Pan: Aaacg7208F & (By The Assessee) Assessee By : Shri B.Balachandran, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax(Appeals)-I, Bengaluru, Dated 30/08/2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly, Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is A Company Duly Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Making Of Sheet Metal, Medical Equipments & Accessories. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-

For Appellant: Shri B.Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 54GSection 69

section 143 (3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] at total income of Rs.42,97,10,412/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made several disallowances. One of the disallowances relates to the sale of the building, plant and machinery, factory situated at Whitefield, Bangalore. The factory building was sold on 10/09/2008

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) considered the submission of the assessee and relying on the judgment of jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sambandam Udaykumar [(2012) 345 ITR 389 (Kar.) observed

M/S. MECHELONIC WELDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-12(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 441/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54G

disallowance of exemption under Section 54G of the Act. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

54G or section 54GA or section 54GB were inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 which is effective from 01.04.2020, but the impugned case on hand is related to the AY 2018-19 & therefore the exemption u/s 54/54F can be claimed even without filling a return of income. Lastly the ld. AR submitted that the Assessee has invested an amount

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

ITA 1177/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Channamalikarjuna Gowda, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 154Section 253(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

disallowance made u/s 80P of the Act is bad in law. M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari Ni, Raichur Page 3 of 13 3. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay of 363 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The CIT(A) order has been served to the assessee on 30.10.2021. As per section

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

disallowed.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that before the due date of filing of the return she had invested Rs.1,26,00,000 in purchase of agricultural land, which was to be converted by the builder into non-agricultural land and she was entitled

V.S. CHANDRA SHEKAR vs. ACIT,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 243/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Sheshachala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 2(47)Section 48Section 50CSection 53A

54G(1), Section 54GA(1) and Section 269UA(d) and Explanation to Section 155(5A). Thus, Section 50C applies only in case of a transferor of land which in the instant case is M/S Namaste Exports and not the assessee who was only a consenting party and not a transferor / co-owner of the property. Undoubtedly, the assessee had certain

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, KALABURGI vs. SHRI. SANTHOSH VERGHESE, KALABURGI

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

ITA 2693/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 54G

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54G of the Act, was agreed upon by the assessee during the assessment proceedings, against which the order of CIT(A) was passed without any ground for the assessee to contest in appeal and CIT(A) ought to have examined this issue as borne out on record. by examining or hearing

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

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

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(14) of the Income

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

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 in those cases. Section