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.

11 results for “house property”+ Section 54Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi72Chandigarh57Bangalore27Indore20Ahmedabad17Mumbai15Chennai13Jaipur11Pune11Raipur9Karnataka6Hyderabad6Surat6Rajkot5Kolkata5Dehradun4Cochin3SC3Nagpur2Patna2Jodhpur2Varanasi1Calcutta1Jabalpur1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 54F41Section 54B35Deduction10Section 143(3)8Exemption8Addition to Income6Capital Gains5Section 143(2)4Section 1474Section 263

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

ITA 666/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

54B. 7 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 154 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 399 (MAD HC) - The assessee, sold a house property and purchased a property in name of his wife. The Assessee claimed exemption under section

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 645/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

4
Long Term Capital Gains4
House Property4
Bench:
For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 54F

54B. 7 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 154 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 399 (MAD HC) - The assessee, sold a house property and purchased a property in name of his wife. The Assessee claimed exemption under section

SITARAM R. RAHANE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE. WARD 3, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 650/PUN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.650/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Sitaram Raosaheb Rahane, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.3, Oscar Pride, Date V Ward-3, Ahmednagar. Colony, Behind Atharva S Mangal Karyalaya, Savarkar Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422013. Pan: Afapr 3796 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune Dated 22.01.2020 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Shri Sitaram Raosaheb Rahane [A]

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 541Section 54B

section 54B, it should have been given a liberal interpretation so as to allow the benefit u/s 54B in respect of the amount actually invested towards purchase of the impugned agricultural land within the stipulated time limit. 6. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that the A.O. has erred in allowing deduction u/s 54B of 2 Shri

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

section 54B of the Act, only agricultural land purchased after the date of transfer is allowed as deduction. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the exemption claimed u/s 54B of the Act should not be disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. In response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1678/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 548Section 54BSection 54B(1)Section 69A

house subsequent to such transfer through agreement to sell. In the case of ‘TR Ardvinda Reddy’ (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the word 'purchase' referred to in section 54(1) of the Act held that the ordinary meaning of the word 'Purchase as buying for price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards

VIVEK NATHURAM GAVHANE,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 849/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 69C

house property. Out of 22,70,000/-, rent received for the FY 2019-20 is Rs 7,70,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs 15,00,000/- is in reference with the arrears of rent received pertaining to the previous year for a period of 6 months viz-a-viz 2,50,000/- per month from October

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

houses on the land of the assessee and the assessee in lieu of this JV agreement will get 34% of construction area. The terms and conditions of the agreement clearly show that the assessee has transferred the land to the developers for development purpose and the joint venture agreement is also a registered agreement. He noted that the assessee

RAMDAS PANDHARINATH KALE,(HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 436/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 54BSection 54F

house property in support of claim u/s. 54F of the Act. The CIT(A) having found the said information not before the AO, sought remand report. The AO furnished remand report. According to the AO relating to this issue u/s. 54B of the Act held that the assessee purchased agricultural land to an extent of Rs.72,21,240/- on individual

SANJAY NAMDEV TILEKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 382/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.382/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjay Namdev Tilekar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Row House No.6, Manjari Green, Manjari Stud Farm, Phase One, Pune- 412307. Pan : Ahwpt3174F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly With 281 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Along With Death Certificate Of His Wife, Praying For Condonation Of Delay Of 281 Days In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. Ld. Dr Could Not Controvert The Averments Made In The Above Affidavit. We Are Of The Considered

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 54BSection 55A

section 54B to the tune of Rs.74,400/- as against the Rs.1,08,55,000/- thereby reducing the same by Rs.34,15,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing officer erred in not granting the claim of Rs.23,50,034 made toward purchase of house

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

54B, 54EC, 54EE, 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

KALA ARVIND JAIN,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 389/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 45Section 54F

House Property Purchased as 50% as against, in the Ratio of Investment by Mrs. Kala Jain & Mr. Shanki Jain, in term of Sec. 45 of Transfer of Property Act.) Appellant prays for deduction as claimed. 2 ITA No.389/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 4. Assessee denies Liability to Interest u/s 234A, B and 234 C. Appellant prays for deletion of the Same