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 “house property”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,805Delhi1,330Bangalore600Chennai467Jaipur375Ahmedabad340Kolkata281Hyderabad278Pune207Cochin138Karnataka138Indore130Chandigarh112Visakhapatnam70Surat67Raipur63Calcutta55Nagpur49Lucknow33Cuttack30Rajkot28Telangana27Patna27Amritsar25Guwahati24Agra23SC17Jodhpur11Allahabad10Ranchi9Dehradun8Varanasi7Jabalpur3Rajasthan3Andhra Pradesh1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Himachal Pradesh1Panaji1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 26311Section 54B11Section 143(3)9Section 54F8Section 1476Capital Gains6Addition to Income6Section 1485House Property5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, SUBHASH ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. AMBEY ASSOCIATES, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 68/DDN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (Through VC)For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Sahni, Chartered Accountant
Section 143(3)

Long Term Capital Gain. The Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings re-characterized capital gain as business income and made addition of Rs.13,90,79,150/- under the head ‘Income from Business and Profession’. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28.12.2017, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee

PRAKASHI UNIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, KOTDWAR

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

Long Term Capital Gains4
Deduction4
Section 543
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

long-term capital 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

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

house, by stating that all the proofs submitted were of last few months and not at the time of purchase of the property. 6. That having regard of the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law for not incorporating full reply at 14/03/2021 submitted before PCIT in the order passed u/s 263 ar 26/03/2021

OMWATI,DEHRADUN vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6853/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Omwati Pr. Cit W/O Sh. Dariyav Singh Dehradun 171/1, Vasant Vihar, Vs. Dehradun Pan-Aanpw 6438K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54B

long term capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being House No. 267, Sector

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

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

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)

long terms capital gains from the sale of said property, assessee claimed deduction u/s 54EC for investment in NHAI Bond of INR 50 Lakhs and further claimed deduction of INR 1,90,86,224/- u/s 54F of the Act proportionately out of total cost of acquisition of new house

SH. DEVENDRA DUTT PANT,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT , UTTARKAHAND

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 149/DDN/2025[2106-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2106-2017

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54BSection 54E

term capital gain at a sum of Rs. 1,50,95,314/-. While doing so, assessee had claimed a deduction under section 54EC of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- and under section 54B of a sum of Rs. 79,97,240/- (in dispute), (kindly see page 2 of AO order and page 7 of PB for Income

GULSHAN KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7350/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7350/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Gulshan Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 40, Anand Chowk, Ward-1(3), Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1177F Assessee By : Sh. Romal Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Haldwani Dated 10.08.2017. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That On The Facts & In Law The Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao7 & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) {Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)) Are Void-Ab-Initio & Bad In Law. 2. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By Learned Ao Of Rs 8,74,000/- On Account Of Sale Of Jewellery Made By The Assessee Despite Of The Fact That The Said Sale Was Truly Declared By Assessee In Its Return Of Income. The Addition Made By Learned Ao & Sustained By Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Been Done On Erroneous & Frivolous Grounds Such As Item Wise Detail Of Sale Of Jewellery Not Provided, Buyer Not Being In Business Of Jewellery & Other Petty Issues. Both

For Appellant: Sh. Romal Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 2Section 80D

house property income, 3 Gulshan Kumar business income from own business of civil construction work and share of profit from partnership firms, long term capital gains