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.

109 results for “capital gains”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai438Delhi415Chennai270Bangalore244Hyderabad171Ahmedabad139Jaipur122Pune109Indore85Kolkata73Chandigarh53Surat49Visakhapatnam48Karnataka31Nagpur27Cochin26Raipur23Patna21Agra16Rajkot15Amritsar14Lucknow12Cuttack11Jabalpur11Jodhpur9Dehradun8Telangana7SC5Ranchi5Calcutta4Kerala3Guwahati2Allahabad2Varanasi2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 54F314Section 143(3)75Deduction68Addition to Income60Section 5459Long Term Capital Gains54Section 54B51Capital Gains51Exemption50Section 271(1)(c)

ARUNKUMAR PURSHOTAMLAL KHANNA,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CIRCLE), PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 181/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.181/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Arunkumar Purshotamlal Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. Khanna, Flat No.3123/3124, Clover Palisades, Nibm Road, Kondhwa, Pune- 411048. Pan : Agipk3043K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

54F of the Act. Further, the assessee has also kept an amount of Rs 1,00,00,000 under Capital gain scheme, and excluded the same from the total taxable capital gain. From the above, it can be seen that the assessee has made a claim in respect of 3 issues. These are claims of deduction of flats under section

Showing 1–20 of 109 · Page 1 of 6

39
Section 26337
Section 14835

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 403/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

Capital Gain. The only dispute was that whether against such gains, the assessee could claim deduction under section 54F of the Act on account

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1738/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

Capital Gain. The only dispute was that whether against such gains, the assessee could claim deduction under section 54F of the Act on account

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2791/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 269USection 41(1)Section 53A

Gain. This ground has been taken as an alternative ground which is without prejudice to ground nos. 7 and 8. The AO in the assessment order has disallowed the claim made u/s 54F as because the assessee was found ineligible for the deduction, the fact being that the assessee was already the owner of two residential houses. The appellant

MRS. KAMAL MURLIDHAR MOKASHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

Section 54F(4) of the Act as interpreted by the Gauhati High Court in Rajesh Kumar Jalan's case (supra.) the amounts subject to capital gain

ALLAN EMANUEL FERNANDES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2493/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.M.Rajapurkar
Section 54F

gains. Thus, a plain reading of provisions of section 54F and perusal of decisions discussed above, we find that the assessee is eligible for claiming benefit of section 54F after having invested capital

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 234/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

section 45(2) is inconsequential. 18. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a copy of the occupancy certificate dated 23.12.2014 and the following chart disclosing the calculation of correct capital gain on sale of flats: 11 Particulars FY 16-17 AY 17-18 (a) Sale Consideration 3,67,25,561 (b) Total FMV as on date

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

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

ITA 283/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

54F of Act and disallowed the same.  The conditions to be satisfied to claim exemption under section 54 are as under: i) the asset transferred is a residential house; ii) the asset transferred is a long-term capital asset and hence there is a long term capital gain

SAFIQUE SADRUDDIN BALSARRA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6 (3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1783/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

section 54F of the Act is not to be strictly interpreted and the provisions u/s. 54F is a beneficial legislation. The said provisions should be liberal construed. Further, he submits that the assessee invested his share of capital gains

NAWAB PASHASAHEB JAMADAR,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 731/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपीऱ सं. /Ita No.731/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Global Panacea Hospital, Latur Gross Golden Jubilee, B-Block, Mahaeboob Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur – 413 512, Maharashtra Pan : Aaopj3902E Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 50Section 50(2)Section 54

section 50(2) were attracted and the assessee became liable to be visited with short term capital gain, as has been computed by the AO. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order on this score. 8. The assessee has raised an additional ground claiming exemption u/ss.54 and 54F

DASHRATH V.WAGASKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 270/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.270/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Asha Bhausahebthube, The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Vs Ward-1(4), Nashik. Mr.Dashrathv.Wagaskar), Gat No.63, Wagaskar House, Anandvalli, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422 013. Pan: Aampw 5276 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore B Phadke– Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 14/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2022

Section 2(47)Section 234BSection 234CSection 54F

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: 7. Section 54F

DASHRATH DHARMRAJ MULE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

ITA 124/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

section that the deduction can be claimed if the investment is made in any other's name. Thus the A.O. has rightly disallowed the deduction. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I hold that the A.O. has rightly made the addition of Rs.8,64,455/- on account of long term capital gain disallowing the deduction claimed by the appellant

INDUBAI DHARMRAJ MULE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

ITA 123/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

section that the deduction can be claimed if the investment is made in any other's name. Thus the A.O. has rightly disallowed the deduction. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I hold that the A.O. has rightly made the addition of Rs.8,64,455/- on account of long term capital gain disallowing the deduction claimed by the appellant

NITTEN SHRIKANT CHOUGULE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 647/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 68

capital gain should be assessed to tax. 12. Appellant has not denied that the property was not shown in his tax returns. Therefore, income of sale of property is out of book income. Therefore, principally speaking, assessing officer was justified in holding that the income has to be added to appellant's taxable income and no deduction under section 54F

PRANAY LALITKUMAR JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1347/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 2(22)(e)Section 54F

capital gain deposit scheme. The language enacted by the legislature in section 54F(4) is absolutely similar to Section 54G(2) of the Act. In reference

LALITKUMAR KESARIMAL JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1345/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 2(22)(e)Section 54F

capital gain deposit scheme. The language enacted by the legislature in section 54F(4) is absolutely similar to Section 54G(2) of the Act. In reference

KRUTI LALITKUMAR JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1346/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 2(22)(e)Section 54F

capital gain deposit scheme. The language enacted by the legislature in section 54F(4) is absolutely similar to Section 54G(2) of the Act. In reference

JOHN THOMAS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13 (5),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri M.N. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 234BSection 26Section 27Section 54F

section 54F of the Act for granting exemption applies for the purpose of capital gain of transfer of certain capital

KARANSINGH KACHRUSINGH KAKAS (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1714/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54BSection 54F

section 54F to be eligible for claiming exemption the assessee was required to purchase residential house within two years from the date of transfer of capital asset. Since, the assessee made investment in purchase of residential house within the period of 2 years, the assessee is eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. 5. On the other hand

SHIVAJI RAMDAS SAKHARE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1567/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 54F

54F (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain