Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

6,111 results for “house property”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,713 Mumbai1,507 Bangalore702 Chennai438 Jaipur266 Ahmedabad215 Hyderabad208 Kolkata191 Chandigarh155 Pune96 Cochin75 Indore70 Raipur53 Lucknow49 SC34 Amritsar31 Surat30 Nagpur29 Visakhapatnam28 Patna28 Rajkot25 Calcutta24 Agra23 Guwahati23 Cuttack16 Telangana15 Rajasthan12 Jodhpur12 Karnataka11 Kerala7 Allahabad5 Orissa4 Ranchi4 Jabalpur3 Dehradun2 Punjab & Haryana2 Andhra Pradesh1 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 Gauhati1 Varanasi1 Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income73 Section 13239 Section 5437 Section 6935 Search & Seizure35 Section 139(1)34 Section 143(3)31 Section 153C29 Section 54F26 Deduction

TARUN KUMAR RATAN SINGH RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 32(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2695/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54

property has\nbeen invested in purchasing a residential house, then an assessee\nwould be entitled to the benefit having from section 54

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA

ITA 405/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Section 145(3)Section 54F

Showing 1–20 of 6,111 · Page 1 of 306

...

26

Section 143(2)20

Section 69

Section 69A

house property situated at Lucknow at the time of transfer of property that\nviolates the provisions of section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961.\nC.O.No.27/Lkw/2024, A.Y. 2021-22 (Assessee’s C.O.)\n1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,76,800/- being difference between amount\ndetermined

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5799/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Piyush ChhajjedFor Respondent: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR)

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has 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 proposed amendment reads as under- In section 54

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

houses within stipulated time limit, assessee would be entitled to benefit of exemption under section 54 - Held, yes" 21 Farooq Abdulla Merchant CASE LAW CITATION The Judgment of ITAT "Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, Mumbai, Nilufer Income in 1961 - Capital gains - Profit on sale case of V. Sayed Tax of property

AMIRALI AKBARALI ENGINEER,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 289/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Amirali Akbarali Engineer, Vs Acit, A/201, Senha Apna Ghar, Ward-24(1), Unit No.11, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Swami Samarth Nagar, Mumbai Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacpe9331N

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

Section 54 and not as two separate and distinct units? Regarding Question -(a) : 3. (a) The respondent is an individual deriving income from salary, house property

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

section 54 is allowed in respect of only one house property so why not exemption provided under section 54 be not withdrawn

CHERYL OSCAR PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1013/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (SR. DR.)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54F

property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than one residential houses, exemption would be available only in respect of one house and other self-occupied residential houses will be treated as let out. There is no such provision in section 54

DIPTI NALIN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 17(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 3274/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri M Balaganeshdipti Nalin Parikh, Crescent Bay T4 Apt. 3103-3104, Near, Parel Bhoiwada, Opp. Cancer Society, Jeerabai Wadai Road, Parel (E), Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aabpp5053F ............ Appellant Vs. Ito-17(1)(4), 115, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sonia Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 54Section 54(1)

house may consist of several independent units and that cannot be a factor to disallow the claim made u/s 54 or 54F.” 13. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. The section 54 of the Act as applicable to the AY 2015-16 provides as under: Profit on sale of property

SMT.MANJU MAHENDRA GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 994/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Manju Mahendra Goyal Income Tax Officer-19(2)(3), A/802, Surya Apartments, Room No.2018, Matru बनाम/ 53, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aafpg2990N

Section 45Section 54

section 54 was or could be available only against the purchase of the first property for residence after the sale of the residential house

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. NARASIMHA REDDY DUTHALA, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1113/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2025AY 2022-23

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 54Section 54F

property was under construction and not income-generating. The investments were made within the prescribed due dates, and the purchase was for constructing a residential house, not just vacant land.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "54F", "139(1)", "44AB", "270A(9)", "234F", "123", "2(47)", "54

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1399/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 24Section 32(1)Section 801ASection 801A(4)

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7407/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 24Section 32(1)Section 801ASection 801A(4)

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4864/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 24Section 32(1)Section 801ASection 801A(4)

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL. CIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3692/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 24Section 32(1)Section 801ASection 801A(4)

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM vs. DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD., GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1451/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 24Section 32(1)Section 801ASection 801A(4)

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

DLF CYBER CITY DEVELOPERS LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURUGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4865/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Circle-1(1), Gurugram Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H Dlf Cyber City Developers Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Shopping Mall Range-I, Complex, Arjun Marg, Dkf City, Gurgaon Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccd3572H

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 24Section 32(1)Section 801ASection 801A(4)

section 80-IAB(1), qualify to be eligible for deduction there-under. That is, the lease rental is within the contemplation of the profits derived by a developer of a SEZ from the 'business' of developing it, eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IAB. It is in fact this that forms the basis of the decisions in Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure

ITO 16(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. SHASHANKA GHOSH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer-16(1)(4), Vs Shri Shashanka Ghosh, Room No.438, 4Th Floor, C-701, Jay Bharat Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Yari Road,Near Amarnath M. K. Road, Tower, Varsova Andher (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400061 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Acwpg5915E

property, it should be deemed that sufficient steps had been taken and it would satisfy the requirement of the section 54 of the Act. As per the Hon'ble High Court, the basic purpose behind section 54 of the Act is to insure that assessee is not taxed on the capital gain, if he replaces his house

SRIDHAR REDDY BAYAPU,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 841/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

54 or the capital gains arising from the sale of house property, where section 54(2) stipulates that if the amount

THAJUNNISSA BEGUM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD -10(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 196/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 196/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Thajunnissa Begum, Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Prasanna Vinayagar V. Non Corporate Ward -10(4), Kovil St., Chennai. 235, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Adcpt-2186-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

section 54 of the Act, to avail exemption u/s. 54, the assessee will have to purchase and construct one residential house. Further, in case of purchase of new residential house, it should be purchased within one year before, or within two years after the date of transfer of residential house property

SANJIV AHUJA,DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 977/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja,Sr. DR

Section 13(2)Section 54

properties, the details of which are as under :- Investment in DLF Magnolilas on 21.07.2011 Rs. 58,00,000/- Investment in DLF Park place on 08.05.2012 Rs. 47,10,369/- 12. According to the AO, in view of provision of section 54 of the Act, assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54 of the Act for one house