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.

6 results for “disallowance”+ Section 54Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi63Bangalore27Surat27Pune25Ahmedabad25Jaipur22Mumbai21Indore20Chennai14Raipur12Rajkot9Hyderabad6Kolkata6Chandigarh5Nagpur5Karnataka5Amritsar3Visakhapatnam2Cuttack2Jabalpur2Jodhpur2Agra2Dehradun1SC1Cochin1Varanasi1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 249Section 546Section 1545Addition to Income5Deduction4Section 54B3Section 10(38)3Section 2633Section 143(3)3Disallowance

ACHHELAL YADAV,DANKUNI vs. ITO, WARD-23(1),HOOGHLY. , HOOGHLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 844/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Achhelal Yadav Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23(1), G/4/3, Phase-Ii, Dankuni Housing Vs Hooghly Complex P.O. Dankuni West Bengal - 712331 [Pan: Aakpy3403B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 When In Fact The Entire Sold Lands Were Rural Agriculture Lands & Thus The Said Lands Do Not Come Under The Purview Of The Definition Of Capital Asset As Provided Under Section 2(14)(Iii) & Thus The Entire Calculation Of Capital Gain On Sale Of Rural Agriculture Land Was Illegal, Wrong & Without Any Sanction Of Law. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao By Invoking The Provision Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Since The Mistake, Which Was Sought To Be Rectified By The Ao, Was Not A Mistake Apparent From The Record As Prescribed Under Section 154. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)
3
Section 54F2
Exemption2
Section 154
Section 2(14)
Section 2(14)(iii)
Section 250
Section 54
Section 54B
Section 54F

54B when it was evident and on record that assessee had purchased new agricultural land of Rs.69,80,000/-. 5. For that although in original assessment TDS of Rs.34,460/- was allowed but in rectification order no TDS was allowed for an unknown reason. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the view that the exemption

SRI AMITAVA BANERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOLKATA, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 567/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 567/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Amitava Banerjee.............................……………………………………………..Appellant C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Chartered Accountants, A-4, Nandalal Bithi, City Centre, Ground Floor, Durgapur – 713 216 [Pan : Ahnpb 7336 E] D.C.I.T., Cir - 2...................………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Aayakar Bithi, Durgapur – 713 216 Appearances By: Shri V.N. Purohit, Ca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 01, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 05, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals), Durgapur Dated 18.01.2017 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On Facts, In Not Giving Any Decision On Ground No 1 Which Read As Follows: I. That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Bad In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Cit(A) Has Likewise Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs. 23,77,816/- (Wrongly Stated In Ground As Rs. 13,90,737/-) Being Profit On Sale Of Agricultural Land. 3. That The Cit(A) Has Likewise Further Erred In Confirming Following Adhoc Disallowances Made By Assessing Officer. (A) Out Of Car Expenses Rs. 25,000/- (B) Out Of Maintenance Cost Of Officer Equipment Rs. 50,000/- (C) Expenses On Staff Training Rs. 88,400/- (D) Loss On Sale Of Asset Rs. 34,679/-

Section 148Section 54Section 54B

section 54B of the Act as there was no evidence which could be produced by the assessee to show that the land sold by him was used for agricultural purpose for at least two years immediately prior to transfer. He, therefore, disallowed

RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 2(14)Section 45Section 45(1)Section 47

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income tax under the head capital gain and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The ld. A.R has referred to provisions of Section 47 which enumerate certain transactions not to be regarded as transfer and consequently

SHUVRO CHATTARAJ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT , BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 226/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

54B, 54D,54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F , 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The transfer is defined under section 2(47) of the Act as under: 2(47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes

D.C.I.T. CIR - 8,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PATTON DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Aayakar V/S. Patton Developers Pvt. Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Ltd., 3C, Camac Street, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 016 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabct 2076 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(1)(vi)

disallowed the conversion of the capital asset into stock-in-trade on the ground that there was no business activities carried on by assessee-company during the relevant previous year and Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the claim of the AO on the ground ITA No.90/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT Cir-8, Kol. V. M/s Patton Developers Pvt. Ltd. Page

ACIT,CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S PATTON DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1945/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattcharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Lokesh Kumar Mishra, AR
Section 10(38)Section 24

disallowed the conversion of the capital asset into stock-in-trade on the ground that there was no business activities carried on by assessee-company during the relevant previous year and Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the claim of the AO on the ground that Sec.45(2) of the Act provides the assessee to convert the capital asset into stock