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.

4 results for “disallowance”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai305Delhi269Chennai168Bangalore118Ahmedabad94Hyderabad86Jaipur72Pune70Kolkata51Surat39Indore34Visakhapatnam29Chandigarh24Cochin18Lucknow14Karnataka14Nagpur13Raipur12Agra11Jodhpur9Rajkot9Cuttack8Patna7Dehradun4Ranchi4Jabalpur4Allahabad2Varanasi2Amritsar2Telangana2Calcutta1SC1

Key Topics

Section 54F16Capital Gains4Deduction4Section 143(3)3Section 543Long Term Capital Gains3Business Income2Exemption2Disallowance2Addition to Income

SRI ANAND KUMAR DHANUKA ,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 163/RAN/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.163/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Indrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 10Section 22Section 263Section 54Section 54F

disallowing section 54F deduction claim of Rs. 27,66,230/-. It is not in dispute that the assessee had invested

SRI RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SUKESH KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI

2

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 194/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.194/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sri Ramakrishnan Nair Sukesh Kumar.…...…..................……...…..….. Appellant Quarter No.R I/1, Birla Institute Of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi-835215. [Pan: Abtpk1985G] Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Ranchi…..……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Ku. Koley , Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 23, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 07, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act. The assessee had sold an immovable property and earned capital gains of Rs.73,21,565/-. The assessee invested a sum of Rs.75 lakhs for purchasing a new under construction house. Out of aforesaid Rs.75 lakhs, the assessee paid/invested Rs.70,21,565/- within the specified two years from

SUNITA ADUKIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 15/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 54

disallowing the deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the long term capital gain so determined in the assessment order and misinterpreted the provision of income tax act as stipulated in section 54. (x) For that the learned Assessing Officer was not justified in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income

NISHA SARAWGI,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 137/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(iii)Section 45(2)Section 54ESection 54F

section 54F of the Act to the assessee on the ground that residential flat was not constructed after the date of transfer but alongwith saleable flats.” We adopt the foregoing detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis and direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s sec. 54F deduction in issue. 3. Learned counsel is fair enough in not pressing for assessee