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.

8 results for “capital gains”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai438Delhi415Chennai270Bangalore244Hyderabad171Ahmedabad139Jaipur122Pune109Indore85Kolkata73Chandigarh53Surat49Visakhapatnam48Karnataka31Nagpur27Cochin26Raipur23Patna21Agra16Rajkot15Amritsar14Lucknow12Cuttack11Jabalpur11Jodhpur9Dehradun8Telangana7SC5Ranchi5Calcutta4Kerala3Guwahati2Allahabad2Varanasi2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 54F15Section 1476Section 1485Section 143(3)5Section 69A5Capital Gains5Addition to Income5Section 544Section 115B4Deduction

LAT SMT. SAROJ BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3941/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 54F

capital gains reported by the assessee. The inter-connected issue involved therein is as to whether the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under section 54F

SH. CHANDRA KANT CHAHAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2813/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shrim. Balaganesh

Shri Alok jain, Adv.; &
4
Section 2633
Long Term Capital Gains3
For Appellant:
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 50C

section 147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016 the Assessing Officer adopted the valuation report of Govt. valuer dated 16.12.2016 wherein the property was valued at Rs.3,39,57,000/- for the purpose of computing long term capital gains on sale of land. The Assessing Officer adopted 1/6th share of the assessee, namely Late Krishan Kant Chahal and computed the long

SHRI ABHISHEK JOSHI,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/DDN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Abhishek Joshi, Vs. The Pr. Cit, C/O. Parimal Patet, Gk Patet & Dehradun Co, 14 Abhishek Tower, Subhash Road, Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajopj4300M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. S. jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

Section 263 on the basis of suspicions, surmises and conjectures. Shri Abhishek Joshi 3. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. PCIT is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case, since opportunity of being heard in person not considered and without hearing the Assessee the order

KAMAL KISHORE JAISWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 991/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal, Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 23/25, Pritam Road, Central Circle, Dalanwala, Dehradun. Dehradun. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1166C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.04.2022 Order Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Kanpur Dated 16.01.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Assesse Had Sold Plot On Which Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg)Of Rs.22,62,367/- Has Been Declared In His Return Of Income Filed Under Section 139 Of The Act. Out Of Ltcg, Rs.13,95,000/- Has Been Claimed Exempt Under Section 54F Of The Act, Which Was Invested In The Purchase Of Residential House Property Amounting To Rs.38,95,000/- At Pritam Road, Dehradun. A Loan Amount Of Rs.25 Lakh Had Been Availed From Hdfc Bank For Purchase Of The Said Property. The Balance Amount Of Rs.8,67,367/- As Capital Gain Was Offered To Tax. At The Time Of 2 Kamal Kishore Jaiswal Filing Return Under Section 153A Of The Act, The Assessee Claimed Entire Amount Of Long Term Capital Gain Exempt Under Section 54F Act, Therefore, A Show Cause Notice Has Been Issued To The Assesse & A Reply Has Been Submitted By The Assesse On 05.02.2013 In The Following Manner:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 153ASection 217(1)(c)Section 54F

capital gain (LTCG)of Rs.22,62,367/- has been declared in his return of income filed under Section 139 of the Act. Out of LTCG, Rs.13,95,000/- has been claimed exempt under Section 54F

PRAKASHI UNIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, KOTDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7145/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2009-10 Appellant Respondent Ms Praksahi Uniyal The Income Tax Officer F-27 Thdc Colony Vs. Kotdwar Ajabpur Dehradun Pan : Ccxpp8494E ( Appellant ) ( Respondent )

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 69

gain of ₹ 5 97967/– was computed and it was added to the total income of the assessee. The total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 19,16,367/– vide order dated 13/3/2014 passed under section 143 (3) read with section 147 of The Income Tax Act. 3 6. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing

SH. AROON KUMAR SINHA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh. Aroon Kumar Sinha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1, Army Office Enclave, Ward-1(1), Laxmipur Po, Umedpur, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Aidps7458R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.04.2025 Order

Section 144Section 54Section 54F

capital gains amounting to Rs. 53,32,900/- after adopting sale consideration as Rs.60.50 lakhs than that declared of Rs.60.26 lakhs, and, thereafter, rejected his claim of section 54 deduction (originally raised) and latter on sought under section 54F

PARDEEP KUMAR WALIA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2023-24] Pradeep Kumar Walia Vs Dcit C/O-Matta Garg & Co. Central Circle 15, Astley Hall Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Aabpw2423F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-3, Noida [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(Appeals) Noida-3/10009/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 07.02.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(4) Of The Act On 04.11.2023, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 86,20,630/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Corresponding Capital Gain Was Not Declared In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 69A

54F of the Act and corresponding capital gain was not declared in the return of income filed by the assessee. 3. In the assessment order, AO observed that a search and survey action was carried out at the business premises of M/s. Mehta Brothers & Others Group of cases on 24.11.2022 and the resident of Shri Raj Lumba was also covered

MRS. DHOOMI DEVI,CHAMOLI vs. ITO, W-1(4)4, SRINAGAR, CHAMOLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 149/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2022-23] Mrs. Dhoomi Devi Vs Ito C/O-Hotel Udai Palace Near . Ward-1(4)4 Narsingh Temple Srignagar, Chamoli Joshimath Chamoli, Uttarakhand-246174 Uttarakhand-246443 Pan-Adkpd6984B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10329482 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Reason I.E. “Large Investment In Immovable Property As Compared To The Total Income”. The Ao Than Passed The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B On 05.03.2024 At A Total Income Of Inr 2,70,31,224/- As Against The Total Income Declared At Inr 29,45,000/- In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee.

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

section 54F(1) are satisfied in the present case and therefore the appellant is eligible to claim deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1,90,86,224/- 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO/CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that following properties inherited by the appellant are not a "residential house as they are commercial properties