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.

60 results for “house property”+ Section 50Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai265Delhi165Jaipur60Chennai53Kolkata48Bangalore46Hyderabad44Pune31Ahmedabad28Indore18Chandigarh14Raipur13Lucknow13Nagpur12Surat10Agra4Patna4Visakhapatnam4Cochin3Karnataka3Jabalpur3Jodhpur2Telangana2Rajkot2SC1Allahabad1Calcutta1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 14461Addition to Income46Section 143(3)45Section 50C42Section 153A26Deduction26Section 14725Section 13225Section 54F24Section 148

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 558/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Jt.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 160Section 163

houses. 4. The property under consideration has 50% area under the industrial shed, the other 50% was still being used as residential.” From the above observations of the Valuation Officer, it is clear that he has clearly admitted the fact that a major portion of the subject property is being used for residential purposes. Also, he has not alleged that

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

18
Natural Justice14
Long Term Capital Gains11

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 475/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Jt.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 160Section 163

houses. 4. The property under consideration has 50% area under the industrial shed, the other 50% was still being used as residential.” From the above observations of the Valuation Officer, it is clear that he has clearly admitted the fact that a major portion of the subject property is being used for residential purposes. Also, he has not alleged that

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 437/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2011-12
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

50C(2) - Held, yes..”\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to\nthe Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 151/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation Officer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..”\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 438/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation Officer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..”\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 145/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2011-12
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation Officer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..\"\n\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 440/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation\nOfficer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..\"\n\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 436/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 50C

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation Officer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..”\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 439/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153A

section 50C of the IT\nAct 1961, and adopting the sale consideration at Rs. 84,44,842 against the actual sale\nconsideration of Rs.49,00,000. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified,\narbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by accepting the\nsale consideration

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

ITA 1398/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA andFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT -DR
Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

section 50C of the Act. The decisions\nof the Coordinate Benches as referred supra support the case of the\nassessee. Respectfully following the orders of jurisdictional ITAT, it is held\nthat the appellant shall be eligible for deduction u/s 54F in respect of the\nfull amount invested in the new house property

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

ITA 1358/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jul 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Naresh Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50CSection 54

section 147 of the Act. The AO considered deemed sale consideration as per stamp duty value u/s 50C at Rs. 43,08,360/-, disallowed claim of cost of construction (after indexation) amounting to Rs. 5,24,602/- and disallowed claim of deduction u/s 54 amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/-while computing capital gains on sale of immoveable property

GOVERDHAN PRASHAD SINGHAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, JAIPUR

ITA 62/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Nehar. CIT-DR
Section 50Section 50CSection 54F

house property. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing relief to the assessee by considering lesser value u/s 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 of the property sold as taken by the assessee himself. 3. The assessee in ITA 72/JP/2022 has raised the following grounds

DCIT, C-6, JAIPUR vs. GOVERDHAN PRASAD SINGHAL, JAIPUR

ITA 64/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Nehar. CIT-DR
Section 50Section 50CSection 54F

house property. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing relief to the assessee by considering lesser value u/s 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 of the property sold as taken by the assessee himself. 3. The assessee in ITA 72/JP/2022 has raised the following grounds

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271FSection 50CSection 54F

house property which was made after due date of filing of return u/s 139 and the applicability of section 50C

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 744/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

House\nproperty, Capital Gain and other sources during the year under consideration.\nReturn of Income for the year under appeal was filed by assessee on\n13.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,19,33,590/- (APB 1). Case of\nassessee was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of\n“Purchase value of property less than the value

LAL SINGH NADERIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

ITA 59/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal(CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 50CSection 50C(3)Section 54

House property : 32,09,810 Purchase consideration as per Registry 30,00,000 Add : Registry Charges 2,09,810 ------------- Taxable LTCG 33,65,628 The ld. AO did two corrections in the above said computation filed by the appellant i.e. He had adopted sale consideration in terms of section 50C

SHRI DHARAMVIR SINGH ,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Dharamvir Singh, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. S/O- Shri Inder Singh, 523, Near Ward 2(1) Gurudwara, Bhimganjmandi, Kota. Kota Jn., Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Axops 4086 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Swapnil Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Kota Dated 27/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2012-13 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Sole Ground Of Appeal Which Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 16,89,423/-.

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 50C

property on 15/11/2010 and the entire sale consideration was paid in two installments on 16/11/2010 and 08/12/2010, however, the registered sale deed could be got executed on 20/04/2011 at that time, revised rates had come into operation but because of our detailed reasoning above by applying proviso to Section 50C of the Act, the rates prevalent at the time

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

ITA 379/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 48Section 50CSection 54FSection 54F(1)

section 50C is applicable particularly when the same are not applicable as the full value of consideration was invested by the assessee in construction of house. 2 Shri Lalit Kumar Kalwar, Sarwar. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition made

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

ITA 894/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

house property'. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, 'net consideration', in relation to the transfer of a capital asset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer." After analyzing the provisions of section

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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

ITA 1294/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

section 50C since the property sold for Rs. 5,00,000/- was valued at Rs. 30,56,063/- for the purposes of collection of stamp duty which resulted in income of Rs. 25,56,063/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The notice was issued to the assessee through ITBA and the same was delivered on 30.03.2021. The notice