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.

3 results for “house property”+ Section 32Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi31Mumbai24Hyderabad18Bangalore10Kolkata10Indore9Ahmedabad6SC3Chennai3Cochin2Telangana2Karnataka2Rajkot1Jaipur1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 54F16Section 545Section 50D3Exemption3Addition to Income3Section 143(3)2Section 1472Deduction2Capital Gains2Long Term Capital Gains

M.S.AMARESAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1) , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1930/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1930/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. M.S.Amaresan Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of S-101, 4Th Main Road, Income Tax , Anna Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-7(1) Chennai. Chennai-600040. Pan : Aafpa 2740N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/ Appellant By Mr. N.Arunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate : Mr. Suresh Periasamy,Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 घोषणा क"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23. 12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai Dated 20.06.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai Dated 20.06.2017 In I.T.A.No.24/Cit(A)6/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Partial Reworking Of The Claim For Tax Exemption U/S 54F Of The Act In The Computation Of Long Term Capital Gains Without Assigning Proper Reasons & Justification. 3. The Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Misconstruction Of Section 54F Of The Act Would Vitiate The Decision Rendered In Para 4.3 Of The Impugned Order & Ought

Section 54F

32a. Words “constructed, one residential house in India” shall be substituted r constructed a residential house by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, with effect from 01.04.2015’. 10. The above-said amendment to Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, which will come into effect only from 01.04.2015, makes it very clear that the benefit of Section 54F of the Income

2

KIRTHISIMHAN WIJEYANAYAKE,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1854/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50DSection 54

32a. Words "constructed, one residential house in India" shall be substituted for "constructed, a residential house" by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, with effect from 01.04.2015." 10. The above-said amendment to Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, which will come into effect only from 01.04.2015, makes it very clear that the benefit of Section

FAZELAAZHAR,OOTY vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, OOTY

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

ITA 425/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

property for an amount of Rs.52,76,785/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO despite the fact that following case laws were produced before CIT(A):- (i) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gumanmal Jain, 394 ITR 666. (ii) Hon’ble Karnataka