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 “transfer pricing”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai92Delhi65Hyderabad26Bangalore26Jaipur23Chennai20Ahmedabad17Pune14Indore13Kolkata11Cochin10Karnataka8Surat8Chandigarh7Nagpur6Agra6Cuttack5Visakhapatnam4Telangana4SC3Calcutta2Ranchi2Patna1Raipur1Allahabad1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 54F11Section 50C4Capital Gains4Long Term Capital Gains4Section 45(2)3Section 1442Section 1482Section 143(3)2Deduction2

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, the assessee did not satisfy the conditions for allowing the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. In response there to, the assessee filed a letter stating that he is an agriculturist and not having any residential house, sold the agricultural

Business Income2
House Property2

THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SMT GOGINENI SARADA VANI,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

ITA 122/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vijayawada. Vani, 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Vijayawada. Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.N. Murthy Naik, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 54F

54F of the Act, the assessee vide letter dated 16/02/2015 submitted that the land was purchased on 11/03/1997 as a capital asset and subsequently after approval of layout, land was divided into plots. The property was subsequently sold after six years and the said transaction was done only to fetch more income and not with any business proposition. The Assessing

SMT GOGINENI SARADA VANI,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed

ITA 152/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-2(2), Vs. Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vijayawada. Vani, 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Gogineni Sarada Vani, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), 40-7-13, J.C. Plaza, Vijayawada. Jammichettu Street, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. Pan No. Acfpg 5834 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.N. Murthy Naik, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 54F

54F of the Act, the assessee vide letter dated 16/02/2015 submitted that the land was purchased on 11/03/1997 as a capital asset and subsequently after approval of layout, land was divided into plots. The property was subsequently sold after six years and the said transaction was done only to fetch more income and not with any business proposition. The Assessing

VARAHALAMMA PYDI (LATE),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 348/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. 348/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Varahalamma Pydi Late, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-4(2), Pan: Bjhpp9886J Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 50CSection 54F

54F of the act, the Ld. AO proposed to disallow the same. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment proceedings U/s. 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act and determined the total income at Rs. 6,45,36,541/- and raised a tax demand of Rs.1,98,72,160/-. While passing the assessment order dated 11/03/2016, the Ld. AO also initiated