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.

7 results for “house property”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,349Delhi1,715Bangalore824Chennai800Karnataka577Ahmedabad474Pune382Kolkata374Jaipur359Hyderabad306Cochin190Surat189Chandigarh188Indore176Visakhapatnam82Raipur79Cuttack76Lucknow68Nagpur60Calcutta58Telangana56SC52Amritsar45Rajkot40Guwahati33Patna29Agra21Jodhpur21Kerala12Allahabad11Varanasi11Dehradun8Ranchi7Rajasthan7Jabalpur4Punjab & Haryana4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Panaji2Andhra Pradesh2D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Himachal Pradesh1J&K1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 1489Section 1477Section 143(2)5Long Term Capital Gains5Addition to Income5Section 10(38)4Section 143(3)3Section 543Penny Stock

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

property in his name benefit u/s.54F was not allowable. In the case of Prakash v ITO [2008] 312 ITR 40 (Bom) one of the questions w« exactly the same being : - “ Whether for qualifying exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax ACT is it necessary and obligatory to have investment made in residential house

3
Exemption3
Capital Gains3
Section 234A2

ASHOK KUMAR MALHOTRA,DHANBAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DHANBAD

ITA 38/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy)

Section 133(6)Section 2Section 250

property and that a farm house cannot convert agricultural land into non-agricultural land. She prayed for relief. 5. Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record and the case law cited, we hold as follows. 6. The ld. CIT(A) at the last paragraph

BIJOY KUMAR AGARWAL,RANCHI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/RAN/2025[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmaandshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountantmember

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

house property. The assessee also declared Long-Term Capital Gain of ₹30,55,833, claimed as exempt, arising from sale

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

house property, capital gain and other sources. Original return was filed on 14.09.2011, reporting a total income of Rs.19,36,530/-. Subsequently, Ld. AO recorded the reasons to believe stating that assessee has claimed long term capital gain as exempt

SRI AJAY KUMAR MURARKA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/RAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

house property, capital gain and other sources. Original return was filed on 14.09.2011, reporting a total income of Rs.19,36,530/-. Subsequently, Ld. AO recorded the reasons to believe stating that assessee has claimed long term capital gain as exempt

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

houses for partners and its sale six years later due to the unhealthy conditions of the locality, could not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade, especially when the land is not ordinarily a commercial commodity. 1o At thus juncture, I also find it necessary to take cognizance of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

ASHOK BEHL,RANCHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/RAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Ashok Behl Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi 1St Floor, Samridhi Complex, South Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi – 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adwpb2438E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Sannigarh, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Housing loan. The ld Counsel submits that the Long Term capital asset in question arises on the transfer of the aforesaid residential flat of the assessee for Rs.66,00,000/- on 23.11.2013 and thereafter the gain on the transfer was subsequently used for buying another residential property at Nagpur, the assessee thereby taking the benefit of indexation