BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

4 results for “capital gains”+ Section 54Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi68Chandigarh65Indore56Surat34Ahmedabad32Pune24Jaipur19Chennai17Bangalore12Raipur10Rajkot8Mumbai8Nagpur6Patna5Agra5Kolkata4Amritsar4Cochin4Hyderabad4Dehradun4Jodhpur4Jabalpur2Cuttack2Varanasi1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 54B9Section 1489Section 54F7Section 1544Section 2343Section 143(3)3Section 1473Section 50C3Deduction3Addition to Income

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

gains, is very important for two reasons ~ first, that the cost of acquisition for tenancy rights, under section 55(2)(a), is, unless purchased from a previous owner ~ which is admittedly not the case here, treated as ‘nil’; and, - second, since the Provisions of section 50C can only be applied in respect of “transfer by an assessee of a capital

3
Long Term Capital Gains2
Exemption2

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 54F

54B MIGH). Thus, the matter in this case pertains to construction of another floor of the same building." 3. George Britto Jesudas v/s ITO; ITA No. 298/Mum/2016 AY 2012-13 Para 4.2.4 at “against the said long term capital gains, the Para 11 & No adverse pg 12 of the assessee acquired two residential flats 12 of the inference order namely

ITO, WARD-3, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. SHRI BADRI PRASAD, SRIGANGANAGAR

ITA 446/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Aug 2023AY 2013-14
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 3Section 50CSection 54B

capital gain and deduction claimed. The assessee filed reply to this final show cause notice. From the details so made available the ld. AO observed that assessee filed a copy of an agreement which was executed between Sh. Madan Lal, Village Kupli, Tehsil- Vijaynagar (expectant- seller) and the assessee i.e. Sh. Badri Prasad(claimant- purchaser). As per this agreement

NARAYANI BAI DANGI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 42/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.42/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234Section 250Section 54B

section 54B of the Act. Accordingly, the claim u/s 54B amount to Rs.15,53,112/- was rejected by the ld. AO and calculated the capital gain