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.

7 results for “transfer pricing”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai92Delhi65Hyderabad26Bangalore26Jaipur23Chennai20Ahmedabad17Pune14Indore13Kolkata11Cochin10Karnataka8Surat8Chandigarh7Nagpur6Agra6Cuttack5Visakhapatnam4Telangana4SC3Calcutta2Ranchi2Patna1Raipur1Allahabad1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 54F15Section 50C6Section 2635Addition to Income4Deduction4Long Term Capital Gains4Section 143(3)3Section 54B3Section 543

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

price is paid and the deed is delivered . In the percent case, from the statement of case itself as drawn up by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the parties had clearly intended that despite the execution and registration of sale deeds, transfer by way of sale will become effective only on payment of the entire consideration amount

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

ITA 366/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Capital Gains2
House Property2
Condonation of Delay2
Bench:
For Appellant: Sh. Rohit GoelFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta

price is paid and the deed is delivered . In the percent case, from the statement of case itself as drawn up by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the parties had clearly intended that despite the execution and registration of sale deeds, transfer by way of sale will become effective only on payment of the entire consideration amount

SH. RAMINDER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), MOHALI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1270/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1270/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Khanna, Add. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

section 50C of the Act,as against 1.14 crs shown by the assessee, on the basis of information called for u/s 133(6) of the Act from the Estate Officer GMADA, who submitted as under: Size of Plot Transfer fees charged Total price as per transfer fees 200 sq yards 1,25,000/- 50,00,000/- 300 sq yards

SH. SIMERDEEP GREWAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

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

ITA 902/CHANDI/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N.D.Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 54F

price was received. ITA No. 902-Chd-2018- Sh. Simrandeep Grewal, Ludhiana 2 Assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act in respect of the investment made in the month of February 2013. However, the Assessing officer denied the deduction in respect of the investment made in the month of February 2013 on the ground that the aforesaid investment

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1449/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 54F

54F on the capital gains which were invested on 04.04.2014. The whole dispute revolves around whether the transactions entered into by the appellant is "purchase of house" or "construction of a house". To decide the issue at hand, it is pertinent to take note of the documentary evidence on record. The offer letter issued by Jaypee Greens and the amount

SH. LALIT KUMAR BANSAL,MOHALI vs. PR. CIT-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.415/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sh Lalit Kumar Bansal, Pr. Cit-2, बनाम 1708, Phase 3B2, Chandigarh Mohali

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Gupta, CA. &For Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

section 263 of the Act on the fundamental aspects of the transactions in issue on which a view had been taken and, ITA No.415-Chd-2019- Shri Lalit Kumar Bansal, Mohali 8 not shown to us as having been challenged. The arguments of Ms. Bansal that the CIT only sought to treat the price difference as the cost incurred by the assessee

SHEO RAM,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 , YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CHANDI/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CA and Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 148

Section 148 dated 13.09.2012. The AO has thereafter passed an assessment order on 30.03.2014 whereby LTCG liability was determined in the hands of the assessee. Such gain was determined at Rs.3,68,96,060/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) and ultimately it travelled upto the Tribunal vide