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 “transfer pricing”+ Section 54Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh53Delhi21Bangalore19Mumbai15Surat12Chennai12Jaipur8Pune8Ahmedabad6Agra6Indore5Karnataka5SC4Telangana3Cochin2Raipur2Dehradun1Lucknow1Cuttack1Nagpur1Rajkot1Calcutta1Amritsar1Jabalpur1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Hyderabad1

Key Topics

Section 54B18Section 54F8Section 547Deduction7Section 143(3)6Section 695Addition to Income5Section 23Section 1473Section 148

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

ITA 678/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

54B assuming that the agricultural land sold by her was an asset u/s 2(14)(iii) whereas the fact is that the land sold was a rural agricultural land and therefore not an 12 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii). It is submitted that the error committed in showing agricultural land

3
Long Term Capital Gains3
House Property2

SHRI MATHUR LAL,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 940/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2018AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ram Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 54B

section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid.” Thus, the provisions envisaged the benefit of deduction when the capital gain arising from the transfer

ACIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR vs. CHINRJI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

19. As a result, this appeal filed by the department deserves to be

ITA 244/JPR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal.

For Appellant: Sh. B. P. Mundra, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 19Section 20Section 45Section 54B

transferred by assessee was an 'agricultural land and capital gain arising from sale of such land was eligible for exemption under section…….” In view of the facts and the circumstances as stated above, the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s 54B, the disallowance and the addition made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 3,68,49,454/- are hereby

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Rawat (Jt.CIT)
Section 2Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

54B at Rs. 42,56,250/-. The AO observed that the assessee has sold the agricultural land whereas the deduction under section 54 is allowable on sale of residential house. The AO further noted that the agricultural land has been sold by the assessee vide single sale deed and, therefore, the agricultural land and construction thereon was considered as single

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

54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA, 54F and the source thereof and income thereof. 5.1 In response assessee submitted the required details and explained that for claiming exemption u/s 54F, a flat has been purchased for Rs.77,25,000/-. In support of the same 9 sale deeds and 1 purchase deed was filed. The AO after considering the reply of assessee

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. (Thr.VC)For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

transfer of the case from ITO Alwar he proceeded to make the assessment as provision of section 144 of the Act because the notice issued by the ITO, Ward Behror were remained non-compliant and thereby 5 Jaiprakash Yadav vs. ITO the ld. AO made the assessment determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 67,69,092/- making

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 69

54B and deleting the said addition of Rs. 19,92,602. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the plea of the assessee, of the land sold by the assessee, during the relevant previous year, being an agricultural land outside the purview of Capital Asset, as defined

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

transfer of cash to such unexplained advances. If the undisclosed income earned and accumulated over the years is taxed in the year in which it is detected by the Revenue and the same is merely taxed as per normal provisions of the law such an interpretation will place a premium on dishonesty i.e. it tantamounts to rewarding the dishonesty. There