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.

9 results for “capital gains”+ Section 54Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh52Mumbai36Delhi34Bangalore29Chennai14Pune12Kolkata10Karnataka10Ahmedabad9Jaipur9Hyderabad7Agra7SC6Indore6Rajkot4Guwahati3Telangana3Visakhapatnam2Calcutta2Jodhpur2Surat2Patna1Lucknow1Raipur1Cuttack1Cochin1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 54F25Section 54B12Section 5411Section 143(3)9Section 2635Exemption5Deduction5Addition to Income4Section 54G3House Property

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 548Section 54B

Section 54G, the capital gains have to be utilized for the claim of deduction within a specified period. Since the capital

3
Section 142(1)2
Section 143(2)2

SHRI NARESH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 159/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT
Section 45Section 48Section 54F

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

ACIT, KOTA vs. SMT. ZAHIDA BANO, KOTA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 579/JPR/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 May 2017AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

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

SMT. GEETA DEVI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

ITA 351/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 154Section 54Section 54F

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

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

For Appellant: Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

54G and 54GA of 4 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT the Act. Assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26/12/2017 at a total income of Rs. 80,40,080/- for the year under consideration. In consequence thereof, addition of Rs. 62,39,484/- was made U/s 54F of the Act. The ld Pr.CIT after scrutinizing

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 17.12.2019. 2. The assessee has assailed following ground in this appeal:- 2 Sh. Surender Meena vs. PCIT “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed

BHAGIRATH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

ITA 742/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: This Office That The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Has Invested Of Rs. 29,32,775/- In Accordance The Provision Of Section 54B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 To Purchases Agricultural Land Out Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.37,64,082/-

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 2(14)Section 54Section 54BSection 54DSection 54ESection 54FSection 54G

54G or section 54GA or section 54GB were inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 which is effective from 01.04.2020, but the impugned case on hand is related to the AY 2012-13. It indicates that the exemption u/s 54B can be claimed without filling of return of income , now it has been amended by the Finance Act. 2019. 3. That

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 477/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 5(1)(c)Section 90(3)

capital gains on other properties) and art. 22 (other income) which provide that such income may be taxed in both the Contracting States. Intention of parties to the DTAA is very clear. Wherever the parties intended that income is to be taxed in both the countries, they have specifically provided in clear terms. Consequently, it cannot be said that

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 902/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(2)Section 250

section 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA 2. Large value sale of consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration of property. 3. Large cash deposits in savings bank account and assessee has also transferred one or more property(ies) during the year Order passed by A.O:-AO passed the order u/s 154 and made addition on the issue