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 “disallowance”+ Section 54Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai19Delhi16Bangalore14Kolkata8Pune8Jaipur7Ahmedabad6Karnataka5Agra5Chennai5Rajkot4Indore3Hyderabad3Visakhapatnam2Jodhpur2Surat2Cuttack1Chandigarh1SC1Cochin1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 54F30Section 54B14Section 271(1)(c)9Deduction8Section 44A6Addition to Income6Exemption5Long Term Capital Gains4Section 2503Section 2(22)(e)

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in Paras 4.4 and 4.5 of the order. The Ld. CIT(A) reiterated the fact that the assessee has entered into unregistered agreements with both the entities wherein the assessee has substantial interest. It is further stated that no physical possession of the flat has been

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

3
Business Income3
Penalty3
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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in Paras 4.4 and 4.5 of the order. The Ld. CIT(A) reiterated the fact that the assessee has entered into unregistered agreements with both the entities wherein the assessee has substantial interest. It is further stated that no physical possession of the flat has been

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in Paras 4.4 and 4.5 of the order. The Ld. CIT(A) reiterated the fact that the assessee has entered into unregistered agreements with both the entities wherein the assessee has substantial interest. It is further stated that no physical possession of the flat has been

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

54G and 54GA & Large Investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income". However, Ld Assessing Officer has travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny by reclassifying the nature of income and making an addition under the head "Business Income", which is contrary to the scope of enquiry permitted under the limited scrutiny guidelines. Hence addition is not sustainable. Accordingly

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

54G and 54GA & Large Investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income". However, Ld Assessing Officer has travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny by reclassifying the nature of income and making an addition under the head "Business Income", which is contrary to the scope of enquiry permitted under the limited scrutiny guidelines. Hence addition is not sustainable. Accordingly

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

54G and 54GA & Large Investment in property (AIR) as compared to total income". However, Ld Assessing Officer has travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny by reclassifying the nature of income and making an addition under the head "Business Income", which is contrary to the scope of enquiry permitted under the limited scrutiny guidelines. Hence addition is not sustainable. Accordingly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE vs. KALAWATI VIJAYKUMAR AGARWAL, PUNE

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

ITA 979/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 2Section 48Section 54Section 54F

54G, 54GA, 54GB etc. (Non-business ITR)” 3. On perusal of the IT return, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has declared Long term capital gain of Rs.18,87,563/- by claiming the deduction u/s 2 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), details of which are as under: i) Full Value Consideration

BHANUDAS VITTHAL MHASURKAR,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1264/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 53ASection 54BSection 54F

54G, 54GA – whether deduction from capital gains has been claimed correctly”. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were 2 issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that