BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

2 results for “capital gains”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,330Delhi896Chennai312Bangalore284Jaipur256Ahmedabad249Hyderabad176Chandigarh135Kolkata120Pune109Indore108Cochin85Raipur72Nagpur66Rajkot66Surat59Visakhapatnam42Lucknow38Guwahati23Amritsar23Dehradun19Cuttack18Patna16Ranchi13Jodhpur12Agra8Jabalpur6Allahabad5Varanasi2Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 54F5Section 253(3)4

SHAMIMUL FATIMA,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 02, GORAKHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/VNS/2019[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi22 Nov 2023AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Shri. Ashish BansalFor Respondent: Shri. A. K. Singh
Section 54(2)Section 54BSection 54F

54(2) of the Act that the capital gains should be deposited in the CGAS scheme is merely an enabling provision. If the assessee shows during assessment proceedings that the capital gains have been reinvested in the new residential house, exemption cannot be denied merely the amount was not deposited in the CGAS. In this case it is a fact

RADHEY SHYAM,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

ITA 42/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Feb 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2012-13 Shriradheyshyam Income Tax Officer, 308, Sector 16, Avasvikas Colony V. Ward-2(3),Aayakarbhawan, Sikandra,Agra-282007, U.P.. Maqboolalam Road Pan:Aikps7948H Varanasi-221002,U.P.. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 48

CAPITAL GAIN is wholly wrong and against the facts of the case. 3. That in any case the authorities below have not allowed the proper opportunity to explain the case. 4. That the authorities below have erred in holding the cost of acquisition of property to be nil as per provision of the Income Tax Act read with section