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.

29 results for “disallowance”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai305Delhi269Chennai168Bangalore118Ahmedabad94Hyderabad86Jaipur72Pune70Kolkata51Surat39Indore34Visakhapatnam29Chandigarh24Cochin18Lucknow14Karnataka14Nagpur13Raipur12Agra11Jodhpur9Rajkot9Cuttack8Patna7Dehradun4Ranchi4Jabalpur4Allahabad2Varanasi2Amritsar2Telangana2Calcutta1SC1

Key Topics

Section 54F102Section 14831Section 143(3)29Deduction23Capital Gains20Exemption19Section 26318Section 4016Section 143(2)12Section 54

SMT. KANCHARLAPALLI HEMALATHA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.322/Viz/2016 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-2011) Smt.Kancharlapalli Hemalatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Flat No.102, Sri Kesava Heights Ward-2(3) D.No.59A-21/3-5/2 Vijayawada Vizayanagar Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Bcmpk6735M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Malik, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 54F

disallowing the claim of the assessee. For granting deduction u/s 54F, the Assessing Officer has to rely on the main object of sec. 54F which is to encourage housing and the assessee has duly complied with by purchasing a new house property. The assessee also relied on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 14712
Long Term Capital Gains11

THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI TUMMALA VENKATA SURESH BABU, (HUF), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 293/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.293/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito Ward-2(3), Sri Tummala Venkata Vijayawada Suresh Babu (Huf) Vijayawada [Pan No.Aacht2890M] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasa Rao, Dr प्रत्याथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Y. Surya Chandra Rao, Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2018 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasa Rao, DRFor Respondent: Shri Y. Surya Chandra Rao
Section 54FSection 54F(4)

section 54F of the Act, hence, no disallowance is called for. The assessee relied on the decision of Karnataka High

SANNIDHI SRI RAMACHANDRA MURTHY (HUF),RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 230/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sannidhi Sriramachandra Murthy (Huf) V. The Assistant Commissioner Of D.No. 42-10-30/31 Income Tax, Circle-1 Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Sree Ramachandra Murthy Nilayam Veerabhadrapuram Mangalavarapu Peta Rajahmundry-533105 Rajahmundry – 533101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaxhs4350L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व / Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व / Department Represented By : Dr. Satyasaai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

disallowing the following: - i. Deduction under section 54B of the I.T. Act claimed by the assessee for Rs. 84,56,550/- ii. Deduction under section 54F

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, , ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 308/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 148

Section 54F does not provide for exemption on investment in renovation or notification of an existing house. On the other hand, construction of a house only qualifies for exemption on the investment…” 6. In the aforementioned decision, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has also observed that had the assessee constructed a separate and self contained residential unit after

CHAMARTHI MOUNIKA,ELURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, ELURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 309/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.308/Viz/2018 & 309/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Chamarthi Mounica Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Surya Ganesh Electricals Ward-2 D.No.22C-12-21 Eluru Ch.Ranga Rao Street Powerpet, Eluru [Pan : Apupc4598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt. Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14 .08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 148

Section 54F does not provide for exemption on investment in renovation or notification of an existing house. On the other hand, construction of a house only qualifies for exemption on the investment…” 6. In the aforementioned decision, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court has also observed that had the assessee constructed a separate and self contained residential unit after

ARABOLU VENKATA NAGA DEEPATHI REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, N. SATYARAMANUJAMM ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed

ITA 178/VIZ/2018[2010-2011]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam28 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.178/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2010-11) Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi Vs. Income Tax Officer Rep. By Power Of Attorney Holder (International Taxation) Smt. N.Satyaramanujam Visakhapatnam Flat No.403, Dhanna Apartments Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Atcpa6413A] (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri SPG Mudaliar, DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 195Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 54Section 54F

54F etc. for the reinvestments made in the assets as specified by the said sections. The AO observed that income arisen in India on account of capital gains cannot be said to go tax free if it 4 ITA No.178/Viz/2018, A.Y.2010-11 Smt.Arabolu Venkata Naga Deepthi, Visakhapatnam is reinvested elsewhere outside India, as in the case on hand, income from such

VELAGPUDI KRISHNA PRADAD,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 69/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blevelagapudi Krishna Prasad, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), D.No. 32-15-110/4, Flat No.404, Vijayawada. 3Rd Floor, Kutumba Enclave, Moghalarajapuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Aczpv 6726 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.J.P. Anand – Sr.DR
Section 54F

disallowed exemption claimed u/s 54F of the Act, on the ground that the assessee has let out the apartment to educational institution for the purpose of commercial use. The A.O. further observed that exemption u/s 54F of the Act is available to one residential house, but not for all residential flats received in pursuance of joint development agreement

SRINIVASA RAO CHUNDURI,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.235/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Srinivasa Rao Chunduri V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2 D.No. 33-8-20(4), Satya Homes Income Tax Office Kanchi Raju Vari Street Aayakar Bhavan Babu Gari Street, Tanuku – 534211 Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Adwpc3135D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 50CSection 54F

disallowing the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act. 3. On being aggreivedby the order of the Ld. AO, assessee

SATHI TRINATHA REDDY,EAST GODAVARI DIST vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

section 54F(4) of the Act and therefore set-aside the assessment order and directed the Ld. AO to re-do the assessment after examining the claim made by the assessee by 4 providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before Tribunal

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BABU RAJENDRA PRASAD VADLAMUDI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 154/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Babu Rajendra Prasad Income Tax (International Vadlamudi, Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Guntur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri A. Chaitanya, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/03/2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of : 23/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri A. Chaitanya, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

Disallowance of exemption 2,47,43,894 U/s. 54F Total 2,49,63,891 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee made written submissions on 13/12/2018 & 14/12/2018. Considering the assessee’s written submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal

THE ITO,, GUNTUR vs. SRI KALARI VENKATA RASAIAH (HUF), GUNTUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 400/VIZ/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasa Rao, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 54F

disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the Act, which required to be upheld. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. A.R. argued that the assessee has purchased a residential house and as per the provisions of section

KAKILETI SATYANARAYANA,MANDAPETA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMALAPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 673/VIZ/2019[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 54F

section 54F, the assessee is supposed to acquire a residential house 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 a residential house, the capital gain arose out of the transaction will be taxed accordingly

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 487/VIZ/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 28Section 40

54F and the same is accepted in his assessment vide order passed U/s. 143(3). 3. The Ld. AO is not justified in disallowing and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of the proportionate consideration paid to the non-resident Indian, as the same is claimed as a direct expenditure U/s. 29, whereas the provisions

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 132/VIZ/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 28Section 40

54F and the same is accepted in his assessment vide order passed U/s. 143(3). 3. The Ld. AO is not justified in disallowing and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of the proportionate consideration paid to the non-resident Indian, as the same is claimed as a direct expenditure U/s. 29, whereas the provisions

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 139/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 28Section 40

54F and the same is accepted in his assessment vide order passed U/s. 143(3). 3. The Ld. AO is not justified in disallowing and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of the proportionate consideration paid to the non-resident Indian, as the same is claimed as a direct expenditure U/s. 29, whereas the provisions

NIKHIL CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 133/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 28Section 40

54F and the same is accepted in his assessment vide order passed U/s. 143(3). 3. The Ld. AO is not justified in disallowing and the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of the proportionate consideration paid to the non-resident Indian, as the same is claimed as a direct expenditure U/s. 29, whereas the provisions

GRANDHI NAGESWARA RAO (HUF),,ANAKAPALLE vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

ITA 142/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Rao, AR
Section 132Section 148Section 54F

disallowance of claim of the assessee, the assessing officer found that only the borrowed funds are used for purchase of new asset. As rightly submitted by the learned representative for the assessee, provisions of section 54F

NATTA SURYA RAO,TANUKU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANUKU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 404/VIZ/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.404/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2009-10) Natta Suryarao Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Late Manganna Ward-1 D.No.2-20-5 Tanuku Ambati Vari Street Old Town, Tanuku [Pan :Ahrpn 9648M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri.Y.Ratnakar, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri.Y.Ratnakar, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR
Section 148Section 45(2)Section 54F

section 45(2) of the Act and as to why the exemption claimed u/s 54F should not be disallowed? Since

KARUMANCHI NALINI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), , GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 101/VIZ/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2021 & 101/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Dr. Karumanchi Nalini Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.10-3-37 Ward 1(3) Sambasiva Peta Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaypn5886F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

disallowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 5 ITA No.100/Viz/2021 & 101/Viz/2021 A.Y.2013-14 Dr.Karumanchi Nalini, Guntur 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable

KARUMANCHI NALINI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 100/VIZ/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2021 & 101/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Dr. Karumanchi Nalini Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.10-3-37 Ward 1(3) Sambasiva Peta Guntur Guntur [Pan : Aaypn5886F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

disallowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 5 ITA No.100/Viz/2021 & 101/Viz/2021 A.Y.2013-14 Dr.Karumanchi Nalini, Guntur 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable