Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

10 results for “capital gains”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi172 Mumbai132 Chennai84 Hyderabad68 Ahmedabad59 Jaipur55 Indore54 Pune35 Bangalore35 Visakhapatnam25 Kolkata23 Patna21 Nagpur20 Surat20 Chandigarh16 Cochin10 Raipur9 Rajkot8 Lucknow8 Jabalpur6 Dehradun6 Jodhpur6 Agra4 Cuttack4 Amritsar4 Varanasi1 Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 54F51 Section 5412 Exemption9 Deduction8 Section 2506 Section 143(3)4 Long Term Capital Gains4 House Property4 Capital Gains3 Addition to Income

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 566/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

section 54F(1) which reads as follows – Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

3

ITA 613/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: Disposed

ITAT Cochin

02 Jan 2023

AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

section 54F(1) which reads as follows – Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case

REJI KRISHNAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 267/COCH/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Dr. Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 234Section 54F

section 54F, which reads as under:- “[54F. Capital gain on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case

KUMAR MADHAVANPILLAI.S,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 461/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Kumar Madhavanpillai S. Income Tax Officer -1(4) Chandra Press & Book Depot Aayakar Bhavan, Kowdiar P.O. Manjalikulam Road Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Vs. Thampanoor Thiruvananthapuram 695001 [Pan: Ajxps9299P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R

Section 50Section 54

capital gain in pursuance to the provisions of section 50 of the Act irrespective of the period of holding. However, there is no such distinction made under the provisions of section 54/ 54F

SMT SUNITHA PREM VICTOR,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO WARD 2(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 1009/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassunita Prem Victor The Income Tax Officer Tc 25/2813 Mathrubhumi Road Ward – 2(3) Vs. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum 695035 Trivandrum [Pan:Akopv8566C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)],Partly Allowing Her Appeal Contesting Her Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Returned Her Income For The Relevant Year On 18.12.2014 At Rs.5,67,250, Claiming Deduction Under Section 54 Of The Act At Rs.91,05,096 In Respect Of Construction Of A Residential House During The Relevant Year Against The Capital Gain Arising To Her On Sale Of 3 Pieces Of Land Sold During March, 2013 To November, 2013. The Claim Was, Admitting Her Mistake Inasmuch As The Capital Asset/S Sold Was Not A Residential House, Requested By The Assessee Vide Letter Dated 29.11.2016 For Being Considered U/S. 54F Of The Act; She Not Owning Any Other Residential House On The Date Of Transfer/S. Earlier, On 25.11.2016, A Revised Statement Of Income Was Filed Claiming Exemption With Reference To The Total

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

section 54 of the Act at Rs.91,05,096 in respect of construction of a residential house during the relevant year against the capital gain arising to her on sale of 3 pieces of land sold during March, 2013 to November, 2013. The claim was, admitting her mistake inasmuch as the capital asset/s sold was not a residential house, requested

RAPHAEL JOHN (DECEASED),THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), THRISSUR

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

ITA 384/COCH/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: --- None---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 143(3)Section 54F

capital gains u/s.54F by stating that “a” residential house would include multiple residential units. However, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee is only entitled for exemption in respect of one residential unit. Accordingly, AO denied the claim for exemption u/s.54F of the Act. On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the action

PANATTU URUMIS CHACKO,ERNAKULAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(1), KOCHI

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

ITA 790/COCH/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Terry V James, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. GirIy Albert, Sr. DR

Section 54Section 54F

capital gain tax under section 54F. The Assessing Officer rejected the same on the ground that the construction was not completed

BENEESH KUMAR,KOCHI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1161/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Beneesh Kumar .......... Appellant Madathuparambu House, Thattzham Road Vaduthala, Kochi 682023 [Pan: Agipb7548Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non-Corporate Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Ramesh Cherian, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Cherian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Omanakutan, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 282(1)Section 54Section 54F

capital gains returned by the appellant of Rs. 57,28,310/-, however denied the claim of deduction u/s. 54F as the appellant had allegedly failed to adduce proof in support of the claim made. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved

MRS. HEMA RAMNATH,KOCHI vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

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

ITA 118/COCH/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmihema Ramnath Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) 35/2968, Laxmi Villa Ernakulam 682018 Church Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi - 682025 [Pan:Aavpr8682G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 45Section 54FSection 54F(1)

section Hema Ramnath v. Dy. CIT 54F(4) of the Act, which reads as under, to disallow, for the current year, the deduction allowed u/s. 54F(1) for AY 2007-08 to the extent of Rs. 25,58,075: Capital gain

IBRAHIM VELLACHALIL,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), KOZHIKODE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 851/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhibrahim Vellachalil The Income Tax Officer- 2(3) Vellachall House Aayakar Bhavan P.O. Paranuur, Narikkuni Vs. Mananchira Kozhikode 673585 Kozhikode 673001 [Pan: Aclpi2507B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------ None ------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 54F

54F claimed by the appellant by the AO, the appellant raised a new claim that the said land is an agricultural land. 5.9 I have perused the certificates filed by the appellant from the Village Officer Narikuni Village, the President Narikuni Grama Panchayat and two persons from nearby locality. The said documents do not carry much evidentiary value as they