Search: capital gains | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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 “capital gains”+ Section 54Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi68 Chandigarh65 Indore56 Surat34 Ahmedabad32 Pune24 Jaipur19 Chennai17 Bangalore12 Raipur10 Rajkot8 Mumbai8 Nagpur6 Patna5 Agra5 Kolkata4 Amritsar4 Cochin4 Hyderabad4 Dehradun4 Jodhpur4 Jabalpur2 Cuttack2 Varanasi1 Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 54B14 Section 54F8 Section 478 Section 2507 Addition to Income7 Section 143(3)6 Capital Gains6 Disallowance5 Deduction4 Exemption

SHRI RAJESH RAMCHANDRA DAKE,PANVEL vs. DY CIT CC-1, MUMBAI

ITA 3/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

For Appellant: \nShri Rajesh Ramchandra DakeFor Respondent: \nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

54B. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital

SURESH BHAGWANDAS MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(1)(6), MUMBAI

4

Section 143(1)2

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

ITA 6292/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsuresh Bhagwandas Mehta, B-4 Mehta House, Jvpd Scheme, Vl Mehta Road, Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400049 ............... Appellant Pan : Aadpm8459J

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 54B

54B. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital

HUNTSMAN INVESTMENTS (NETHERLANDS),MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4222/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 234B

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous\nyear shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 41[***] 42[54, 54B

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. JASPALSINGH PREHALADSINGH CHANDOK, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4519/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 45Section 47Section 50B

sections viz., sec.54, 54B etc., in the Act. Hence, in order to attract the Capital gains tax, there should be (a) a “Capital

MR COLATHUR N. RAM ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 34(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of what we have observed hereinabove

ITA 1464/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54

capital gain of Rs. 1,90,23,053/- was added in the total income of the assessee. (v) Learned assessing officer further noted that during the year, the assessee held four properties (i) Villa No.3, Amos, Bangalore; (ii) Villa No.5, Amos, Bangalore; (iii) Chennai house property; (iv) Waheed, Bandra, Mumbai. While two of the house properties at Chennai

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NAKUL AGGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2833/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 54F

capital gain invested in both the flats. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.4. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed various documents like the revised plan approved by ‘MHADA’, wherein, the two flats were considered to be one single unit adjacent to each other. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the documents

NAKUL AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-24(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 54F

capital gain invested in both the flats. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.4. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed various documents like the revised plan approved by ‘MHADA’, wherein, the two flats were considered to be one single unit adjacent to each other. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the documents

LATE. SMT. INDIRA J. VIKAMSY ,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT RG-22(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1607/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50CSection 54B

54B of the Act amounting to Rs.21,25,000/- and disallowance of expenditure of Rs.4,91,496/- against the long term capital gain on sale of property. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition/disallowances on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate the fact that