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.

63 results for “house property”+ Long Term Capital Gainsclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,805Delhi1,330Bangalore600Chennai467Jaipur375Ahmedabad340Kolkata281Hyderabad278Pune207Cochin138Karnataka138Indore130Chandigarh112Visakhapatnam70Surat67Raipur63Calcutta55Nagpur49Lucknow33Cuttack30Rajkot28Telangana27Patna27Amritsar25Guwahati24Agra23SC17Jodhpur11Allahabad10Ranchi9Dehradun8Varanasi7Jabalpur3Rajasthan3Andhra Pradesh1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1Himachal Pradesh1Panaji1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 26337Section 54F37Addition to Income31Section 143(3)30Section 14728Disallowance28Section 271(1)(c)26Section 14823Depreciation22

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), , RAIPUR vs. SHRI RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL, RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 32/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.32/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. Radheshyam Agrawal 27/B, Ankit Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). Pan : Aczpa6544J ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(47)(v)Section 49Section 53ASection 54F

long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, one residential house in India

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

Deduction17
Penalty13
Section 5412

JAI GURUDEV INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,BILASPUR vs. PR. CIT, BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 65/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A. No. 65/Rpr/2020 अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jai Gurudev Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम C-11, Netaji Complex, Jarhabhata, Income-Tax, Vs. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Bilaspur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccj 1895 R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 29.07.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing 14.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: 29.07.2021
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 44A

capital gain', per se, is clearly a debatable issue. Hence, the law is now well settled that a debatable issue cannot be subject matter of revision proceedings u/s263. Once an issue becomes debatable, the view taken by the Id AO in his scrutiny assessment order could be construed as one of the possible views and hence, the order passed

SURESH CHAND SURANA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 25/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54ESection 54F

long-term capital asset, not being a residential house, and the assessee within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer, purchases, or within a period of three years after the date of transfer constructs, a residential house then the portion of capital gains in the ratio of cost of new asset

I.T.O. 1(3), BHILAI(CG) vs. SHRI ARUN KUMAR TELANG, BHILAI(CG)

ITA 44/BIL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Arun Kumar Telang, Ito, Ward- 4, H.No. A-127, Phase- Ii, Bhilai (Cg). Junwani, Surya Vihar, Vs. Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Durg (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kr. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rituparan Namdeo, DR
Section 54

property for Rs.1,32,52,500/- on 30.12.2010. Perusal of the computation of income appended to the return filed for the assessment year revealed that the assessee had declared long term capital gain on sale of residential house

ARUN KUMAR TELANG,,DURG(CG) vs. ITO, WARD- 4,, BHILAI(CG)

ITA 39/BIL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Arun Kumar Telang, Ito, Ward- 4, H.No. A-127, Phase- Ii, Bhilai (Cg). Junwani, Surya Vihar, Vs. Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Durg (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kr. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rituparan Namdeo, DR
Section 54

property for Rs.1,32,52,500/- on 30.12.2010. Perusal of the computation of income appended to the return filed for the assessment year revealed that the assessee had declared long term capital gain on sale of residential house

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH SINGH, RAIPUR

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

ITA 231/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.231/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Acit-3(1), Raipur Vs Shri Rakesh Singh, A-4, Mahaveer Singh, Tagore Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Acwps 6453 R (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. Dr ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

house property income at Rs.70,019/-, income from long term capital gain at Rs.19,80,027/- and income from other

MOHAMMAD AKHTAR KHAN,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI

ITA 87/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita No. 87/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Mohammad Akhtar Khan Ibrahim Bada, Nr Masjid Titurdih, Raipur, (C.G.) . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri Gitesh Kumar सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 16/11/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 16/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee By The Present Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 26/04/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Confirming The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) Raipur [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14 [For Short “Ay”] 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Memo Are;

For Appellant: Shri R. B. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 54Section 54F

gains arising from transfer of any long term capital asset (not being a residential house) invested in a residential house. This exemption cannot be availed if there is a house in existence on the date of transfer. In the facts of the present case, I find that the assessee was the joint owner of the house property

M/S. RAJENDRA NATHANI (HUF),RAIPUR (CG) vs. ITO- 1(2),, RAIPUR (CG)

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

ITA 1/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Rajendra Nathani (Huf), Ito- 1(2), H-100, I-6, Rajiv Nagar, Raipur (Cg). Shankar Nagar, Vs. Raipur (Cg).

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(2)

house property as well as capital gain from sale of property. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee sold a property for Rs.15,00,000/- and paid taxes on capital gain as per Rules. However, the 2 market value of the property was Rs.53,26,300/-. Since there was understatement of capital gain, the case of the assessee was reopened

SMT BUDHAREEN BAI,BHATAPARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BHATAPARA

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

ITA 157/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Budhia Reen Bai, Ito, Near Shitala Mandir, Bhatapara (Cg). Hathanipara Ward, Vs. Bhatapara (Cg) – 493118. Pan : Bxxpb0771Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikash Sharma, Adv. Department By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 13-05-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-05-2019 O R D E R Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 223(2)Section 44ASection 55Section 69A

Long Term Capital Gain. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) are separately initiated for concealment of income. 3.2 Appellant’s submission- …. During the year under consideration assessee had sold a property situated at Hathnipara, Bhatapara admeasuring 0.154 hect at amount to Rs. 48 lakhs, the land was actually belong to the name of her husband since 1970 after death

SHRI KALYANDAS LALWANI,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1(1),, BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 18/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 54F

property jointly owned by the assessee and other five co-owners was sold to M/s. Shivram Ventures Pvt. Ltd. on 10-04-2008 for total sale consideration of Rs.5,03,00,000/-, Rs. 3,84,20,000/- for land and Rs. 1,18,80,000/- for super structure on the land. The assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3),, RAIPUR vs. SMT. RACHNA DEVI SADHWANI L/H OF LATE SHRI KALYAN DAS SADHWANI, RAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed, with no order as to cost

ITA 15/BIL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 15/Blpr/2012 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2003-2004

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 253(2)Section 54FSection 68

house property and income from other sources in the form of interest etc., and the long term capital gain [for short

MAHESH SHRIVASTAVA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-3(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 702/RPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 702/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs Mahesh Shrivastava, Income Tax Officer-3(1), House No. 6, Phase-Ii, Office Of The Income Tax Office, Harsh Vihar Colony, Daldalshivni Central Revenue Building Civil Road, Mowa, Raipur-492007, C.G. Lines, Raipur-492001, C.G. Pan: Bqfps6242G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : 05.01.2026 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2008-09 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2025 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DRFor Respondent: 05.01.2026
Section 50CSection 54F

House No. 6, Phase-II, Office of the Income Tax Office, Harsh Vihar Colony, Daldalshivni Central Revenue Building Civil Road, Mowa, Raipur-492007, C.G. Lines, Raipur-492001, C.G. PAN: BQFPS6242G .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CA िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR राज" की ओर से / Revenue by : 05.01.2026 सुनवाई की

KAMLESH JAIN & SONS HUF,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

house property under construction. It was submitted that while the assessee has already started the construction of the property in earlier years but, however, the construction was A.Y. 2016-17 Page 4 of 8 completed after the sale of land parcels (original asset) and thus after the accrual of the long term capital gain

RAJESH CHAND SURANA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54ESection 54F

Long Term Capital Asset i.e. sale of ownership land on 20.08.2015 and claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act. A.Y. 2016-17 Page 3 of 6 The Capital Gains arising to the assessee stands at Rs.41,85,879/- in respect of his share on sale of co-ownership land. The assessee claimed deduction under section

SMT. SHAHNAJ SHEIKH,,KORBA(CG) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- I, KORBA(CG)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 148/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 148/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Shahnaj Sheikh Mig-Ii, 47, Nehru Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Brpps3003Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :14.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50CSection 54

term capital loss (LTCL) of Rs. 2,58,217/- from transfer of the aforesaid property. However, the A.O took recourse to Section 50C of the Act and adopting the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property at Rs. 73.15 lac (supra), therein, vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 20.06.2014 determined the net LTCG

THE SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE , 1(1)BILASPUR, BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 163/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Thus, under each head of income, there' are provisions for deductions which are to be made while computing the income chargeable under that head. It, therefore, follows that it is an obligatory duty cast upon a person filing the return of income to disclose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR

ITA 170/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Thus, under each head of income, there' are provisions for deductions which are to be made while computing the income chargeable under that head. It, therefore, follows that it is an obligatory duty cast upon a person filing the return of income to disclose

SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD.,,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 144/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Thus, under each head of income, there' are provisions for deductions which are to be made while computing the income chargeable under that head. It, therefore, follows that it is an obligatory duty cast upon a person filing the return of income to disclose

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED,BILASPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), BILASPUR

ITA 167/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Thus, under each head of income, there' are provisions for deductions which are to be made while computing the income chargeable under that head. It, therefore, follows that it is an obligatory duty cast upon a person filing the return of income to disclose

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD,BILASPUR(CG) vs. DY.. C.I.T.-1(1), BILASPUR(CG)

ITA 156/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Thus, under each head of income, there' are provisions for deductions which are to be made while computing the income chargeable under that head. It, therefore, follows that it is an obligatory duty cast upon a person filing the return of income to disclose