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.

4 results for “house property”+ Section 53Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai108Delhi97Bangalore92Hyderabad59Chennai34Kolkata23Indore18Chandigarh18Pune12Jaipur10Ahmedabad8Visakhapatnam8Karnataka7Patna6Raipur5Telangana4Amritsar4Cochin4Cuttack4Calcutta3Nagpur2SC2Surat1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 54F16Section 53A4Capital Gains4Deduction4Section 1483Section 543Exemption3Section 1472Section 2(47)2Natural Justice

KANAK BHANJ DEO,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 21/CTK/2024[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack10 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.21/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Kanak Bhanj Deo, Vs Ito, Ward-5(3), Bhubaneswar Plot No.2093/3341, Lane-5, Jaydev Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751013 Pan No. :Angpb 4721 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri N.R.Biswal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 16.11.2023, In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058002817(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Entered Into Joint Development Agreement (Jda) With The Builder On 13.01.2012 & Further Executed A Distribution Agreement On 05.11.2014 According To Which The Land Of The Assessee Was Given To The Developer For Construction Of Multistoried Building & As Per Distribution Agreement, In Consideration The Assessee Is Entitled For 26% Area In The Constructed Building. During The Impugned Year The Assessee Has Got Four Flats Having Total Area Of 4220.23 Sq.Ft. (Including 92.85 Sq.Ft. Additional Area) As The Sale Consideration Being 26% Of The Newly Constructed Building. Out Of The Said

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Biswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 54F

property in the year under appeal as per the Joint Development Agreement; therefore, the transfer took place in the year 2017-18 and not the assessment year 2012-13 as claimed by the assessee. He further submits that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.54F on the four flats which are separate units and as per Section 54F, the assessee

2

ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 250/CTK/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 53ASection 54F

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, thereby into the mischief of 2(47) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus, the notice issued U/s. 147 for the impugned period are not only illegal but also without jurisdiction. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed jurisdiction on the face of the fact that though the Developer Agreement

ITO, BHUBANESWAR vs. ABHAYA PRASAD PANDA, BHUBANESWAR

ITA 214/CTK/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 53ASection 54F

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, thereby into the mischief of 2(47) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thus, the notice issued U/s. 147 for the impugned period are not only illegal but also without jurisdiction. 2. For that the Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly assumed jurisdiction on the face of the fact that though the Developer Agreement

ITO, WARD-3(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. GAYA SANTARA, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal

ITA 468/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 148Section 54Section 54F

53A of the Transfer of Property Act during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to assessment year 2008-09. The assessee declared full value of consideration of capital asset ITA No. 483/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 08- 09 of Rs.70,89,600/- and deducted therefrom indexed cost of acquisition of capital asset of Rs.2,73,003/-, Rs.6