Search: disallowance | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases 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.

18 results for “disallowance”+ Section 54F(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai301 Delhi265 Chennai167 Bangalore118 Ahmedabad93 Hyderabad86 Jaipur72 Pune70 Kolkata51 Surat39 Indore34 Visakhapatnam29 Chandigarh24 Cochin18 Karnataka14 Nagpur13 Lucknow13 Raipur12 Agra11 Rajkot9 Jodhpur9 Cuttack8 Patna7 Jabalpur4 Ranchi4 Dehradun4 Telangana2 Varanasi2 Allahabad2 Amritsar2 SC1

Key Topics

Section 54F47 Section 5414 Capital Gains13 Deduction10 Section 2(24)(vi)8 Section 488 Section 808 Exemption8 Section 54E7 Section 143(3)

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

1. The order dated 28-2-2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Bengaluru disallowing the exemption claimed under section 54F

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

5

House Property5

ITA 613/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

1. The order dated 28-2-2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Bengaluru disallowing the exemption claimed under section 54F

ROSE GEORGE KOLLANUR,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V Ramnath, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

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

1). Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs.74,86,271 while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3). Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed the deduction u/s. 54F based

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

disallowed 54F on the ground that each individual sale of land is not eligible for Section 54F and all sales can be reinvested only 1

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)

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 on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment in residential house. 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section

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

disallowing exemption under section 54/54F of the Act and without giving the benefit of the cost of improvement. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual who during the year under consideration sold immovable property being land &building vide deed dated 6th April 2016 for consideration of Rs. 1.75 crore. The assessee 2 Kumar Madhavanpillai

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. DR. RAMESH KUMAR ISWARA, COCHIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P. George, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234(1)Section 234BSection 50BSection 54ESection 54F

1-4-2006 upto date of re-assessment (order dated 14-3- 2014). Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in not granting exemption u/s. 54EC and 54F of the Act. The CIT(A) allowed relief in respect of chargeability of interest u/s. 234B

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

Section 147 on the differential total income of Rs.3,88,83,800/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who confirmed the order of assessment. The matter was carried in appeal to the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, accepting the sale value as returned

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

disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. 3. The factual background leading to the above addition is that during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration the appellant had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 62,31,820/- which was purchased on 12.03.2004 for a consideration of Rs. 1,62,000/-. The appellant

SMT.MERCY GEORGE L/H OF SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-1, , KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 511/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Thomas Cherian, FCAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

1. The Assessment order is wrong in law and on facts so far as prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The Appellant had not concealed any particulars of income. 3. The Appellant has purchased a residential house, and claimed deduction under the relevant section of the I.T.Act. The Act does not specifically states that for claiming such exemption

M/S.THE MEENACHIL CO-OP AGRICUTURAL & RURAL DEV. BANK LTD,PALA, KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO, WD-4, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 270/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Abraham K.ThomasFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 7(1)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P(2) made by the Assessing Officer on both counts. However, the CIT(A) with regard to the computation/calculation of the percentage of agricultural credit provided by the assessee, restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer in para 12 of the impugned order. 6.2 Therefore, the solitary issue for our consideration is whether