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.

7 results for “TDS”+ Section 54F(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi32Bangalore19Mumbai19Chennai13Jaipur13Cochin10Lucknow8Indore8Hyderabad7Visakhapatnam6Kolkata6Ahmedabad6Patna3Guwahati2Karnataka2Raipur2Surat2Jabalpur1Rajkot1Nagpur1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 54F16Long Term Capital Gains5Deduction5Addition to Income5Section 1484Section 201(1)4Section 1954Capital Gains4Section 54E3Section 54

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. KESAVA KUMAR KUNAPUREDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 937/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 54ESection 54F

TDS is an appropriation of sale proceeds towards taxes and further only the amount invested for construction of house property or amount invested into the Capital Gain Deposit Account Scheme can be considered for the purpose of deduction under Section 54F of the Act, as per sub- section (4

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITTOOR vs. G VIJAYASIMHA REDDY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 376/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: Heard
3
Survey u/s 133A3
Section 143(2)2
ITAT Hyderabad
05 Jan 2024
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Y V Bhanu NarayanFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 148Section 2(13)Section 54F

TDS The tax shall be deducted at the flat rate of 10%. The tax shall be deducted at 20% if Section 206AA or Section 206AB apply. MCQs on Joint Development Agreements (JDA) Q1. If an individual or HUF enters into a joint development agreement (JDA) with a builder or joint developer, it shall be deemed that the capital asset

ADIT(IT)-I,, HYDERABAD vs. M/S KAMINENI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1001/HYD/2013[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kamineni Hospitals Income Tax-1, (International Pvt Ltd., Transaction), L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaack 8356 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2020

For Appellant: Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 191Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 54

TDS) Hyderabad (2007) 13 SOT 489 (Hyd).” 4. However, the Ld. DIT (International Taxation) was of the view that the submission made by the assessee-company is not acceptable due to the following reasons: - (i) All the 4 vendors were proved to be “Non-Resident Indians”. (ii) The assessee company was duty bound to verify the residential status

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. ARUNA GULLAPALLI, HYDERABAD

ITA 339/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Aruna Gullapalli, (International Taxation) – 1, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Bfhpg9489L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 144Section 250(4)Section 48Section 54FSection 69

TDS u/s 194IA. 12.1 Thus, the appellant has factually demonstrated, that the entire sale consideration received on sale of plot was reinvested in a residential property, though the legal formalities of getting the property in the appellant’s name did not take place within the time stipulated u/s 54F. Here arises a legal complication. 12.2 The heading of section 54F

DCIT-1, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD vs. SYAMA REDDY MALIREDDY, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 325/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

4,747 8 Uppal Factory 40,607 11. On the basis of the above, it was submitted that there is no violation of conditions under section 54F of the Act in as much as not having one residential house in the city at the time of filing of the return of income. Further, there was no violation of Rule

MADHU KUMAR PATEL,HYDERABAD vs. ADIT,(INT. TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 395/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2015-16 Shri Madhu Kumar Patel Vs. A.D.I.T (Intl.Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bvdpp3797G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.7.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & A Resident Of The U.K. He Filed His Return Of Income On 31.08.2015 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,91,07,000/- As Income From Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)

4) Parikh & Co. (122 ITR 610) Guj. High Court) 5) S.R. Kosthi vs. CIT (276 ITR 165 (Guj.H.C) 6) Sanghi Industries vs. ACIT (ITA Nos.979 to 1001/Hyd/2017) 13. He accordingly submitted that the Assessing Officer should be directed to delete the sum of Rs.2,91,07,000/- since the same has already been considered for taxation

MURARI SUBHA RAO,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1226/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11 (Through Video Conference) Murari Subba Rao, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 13(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aadpm 2285N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Arvindakshan RS
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151Section 282Section 54F

54F made by the assessee was rejected without adducing proper reasons. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld. AR made elaborate arguments on each of the aforesaid technical issues challenging the validity of reopening of assessment together with its supporting case laws. 3.1 We find that