Search: capital gains | 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.

167 results for “capital gains”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai431 Delhi412 Chennai270 Bangalore241 Hyderabad167 Ahmedabad139 Jaipur122 Pune109 Indore80 Kolkata72 Chandigarh53 Surat48 Visakhapatnam47 Karnataka31 Nagpur27 Cochin27 Raipur23 Patna19 Agra16 Rajkot15 Amritsar14 Lucknow12 Cuttack11 Jabalpur11 Jodhpur9 Dehradun8 Telangana7 SC5 Ranchi5 Calcutta4 Kerala3 Guwahati2 Allahabad2 Varanasi2 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 54F210 Section 14880 Capital Gains62 Section 143(3)60 Deduction60 Section 14757 Section 5455 Exemption38 Long Term Capital Gains37 Addition to Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARASIMHA REDDY DUTHALA, HYDERABAD

ITA 1113/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 54Section 54F

Capital Gains Accounts Scheme. 6.13 Section 54F is a beneficial provision allowing for exemption from chargeability of Capital Gains in certain

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

ITA 376/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Showing 1–20 of 167 · Page 1 of 9

...

37

Section 54F

Section 54F(4)

54F of the Act amounting\nto Rs.4,24,08,090/- is rejected and entire long term capital gain of Rs.4,24,08,090/- is\nproposed to be taxed as 'long term capital gain'.\n12.\nOstensibly, the CIT(A) had dislodged the view taken by the\nA.O. on both the aforementioned issues and had observed, viz. (i).\nthat Section

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: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 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

Capital Gains scheme it was not utilized for the purposes for which the amounts were deposited in to it. It is clearly evident from the information produced and returns of income filed that the assessee wants to take shelter from taxation as per the provisions of Section 54F

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. LAXMI GARDENS, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 833/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Sri K.E Sunil Babu

Section 132Section 153CSection 45Section 45(4)

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 548, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB,54F

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

54F of the Act for Rs. 7,33,96,000/- on the ground that, the assessee has failed to invest unutilized amount of capital gain derived from sale of property in the Capital Gain Deposit Account Scheme on or before filing of return of income under Section

JOSEPH KIRAN KUMAR REDDY BASANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 694/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Joseph Kiran Kumar Reddy Income Tax, Basani, Circle 5(1), C/O. Pary & Co., Chartered Hyderabad. Accountants, No.6, 2Nd Floor, 8-2-703/Vj/6, Vijay Villa, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Agcpb8082B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.Ar. Date Of Hearing: 29.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vamsi Krishna Reddy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karthik Manickam, Sr.AR

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

gain needs to be withdrawn in terms of section 54F(3) of the Act, because of sale of 3 flats within 3 years from the date of acquisition, then the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under section 54F of the Act, against long-term capital

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. K GOPAL RAJ, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 765/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal

Section 132Section 143(3)

54F against this capital gains. The Assessing Officer computed the long term capital gains at 1,04,15,866/- and assessed the total income, including the long term capital gains at Rs. 1,08,15,036/-. 11. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 12. After considering the submissions of the assessee

ITO, WARD-7(3), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. KOSETTY NAGARAJU, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 343/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal

Section 132Section 143(3)

54F against this capital gains. The Assessing Officer computed the long term capital gains at 1,04,15,866/- and assessed the total income, including the long term capital gains at Rs. 1,08,15,036/-. 11. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 12. After considering the submissions of the assessee

ITO, WARD-7(3), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. KOSETTY KISHORE, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 342/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal

Section 132Section 143(3)

54F against this capital gains. The Assessing Officer computed the long term capital gains at 1,04,15,866/- and assessed the total income, including the long term capital gains at Rs. 1,08,15,036/-. 11. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 12. After considering the submissions of the assessee

K GOPAL RAJ, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CEN.CIRCLE-1(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 773/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmans.No.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Esther N. Hangal

Section 132Section 143(3)

54F against this capital gains. The Assessing Officer computed the long term capital gains at 1,04,15,866/- and assessed the total income, including the long term capital gains at Rs. 1,08,15,036/-. 11. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 12. After considering the submissions of the assessee

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 452/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the exemption under section 54F

MOHAMMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 448/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the exemption under section 54F

MOHAMED JAMAL QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 451/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the exemption under section 54F

MOHAMMED JAML QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 450/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the exemption under section 54F

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 455/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the exemption under section 54F

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 456/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the exemption under section 54F

MOHAMED GHANI QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 449/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the exemption under section 54F

MOHAMMED SAYEED QURESHI,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 453/HYD/2018[2009/10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the exemption under section 54F

MOHAMMED ABBAS,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 454/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the exemption under section 54F

MOHMOODA BEGUM,RANGA REDDY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 457/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

Capital Gains. 6. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in, disallowing the exemption under section 54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That, the Learned CIT (A) erred in disallowing the exemption under section 54F