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.

637 results for “house property”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi127 Mumbai100 Chennai52 Hyderabad49 Jaipur40 Ahmedabad31 Indore29 Bangalore26 Kolkata22 Pune22 Nagpur18 Lucknow15 Patna15 Visakhapatnam15 Surat14 Cochin11 Chandigarh10 Raipur8 Jodhpur7 Cuttack6 Jabalpur5 Rajkot5 Dehradun3 Agra3 Amritsar2 Allahabad1 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 54F273 Section 54117 Section 143(3)66 Deduction66 Addition to Income53 Exemption50 Section 26346 Long Term Capital Gains40 Capital Gains40 Section 54B

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 54FSection 69Section 69A

house property situated at Lucknow at the time of transfer of property that violates the provisions of section 54F of Income

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

Showing 1–20 of 637 · Page 1 of 32

...

34

House Property31

Section 54Section 54F

54F(1), holding that assessee\nwas owner of two residential properties at time of transfer of\noriginal asset, since one property was under construction and\nincome from said property was not chargeable under head\n\"Income from house property\" till time of possession, therefore,\ncondition stipulated in clause (b) of proviso to section

ACIT 28 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. PUNITA SANJAY BIDRA , MUMBAI

ITA 2145/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-28(2), Smt. Punita Sanjay Bindra, Room No. 307, 3Rd Floor, Tower 505-506, Kesar Solitaire, 5Th Vs. No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Floor, Sanpada, Plot No. 5, Complex, Vashi, Sector-19, Navi Mumbai-400703. Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Acspb 2454 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. V. Chavda, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas, DR

Section 54Section 54F

section 54F(1) another residential house, income from which is taxable under another residential house, income from which is taxable under another residential house, income from which is taxable under the head income from house property

SAROJ GOENKA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 30(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2129/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

house property during the period\nspecified under Section 54F of the Act in order to get benefit thereunder. Section 54F

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

ITA 413/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goya, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 54Section 54F

property".] …….. After comparing both the provisions of law, we can easily infer that Section 54 is more assessee friendly as compared to Section 54F. The proviso to Section 54F which prohibits an assessee from claiming deduction, if he owns more than one residential house

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 210/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

property is exhausted by the claim of Capital gain but remaining in the time frame stipulated in Section 54F, deduction u/s 54F cannot be denied. Further the thurst of section is on investment of net consideration received on sale of original asset and start construction of a new residential house

SREENIVASULU SAGALETI,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2493/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54FSection 54F(1)Section 54F(4)

property on 14.06.2017, the net consideration from the sale was not utilized towards acquisition or construction of a new residential house as provided in section 54F

ATUL GOVINDJI SHROFF,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1443/AHD/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 54F

Section 54F to debar the person from claiming deduction u/s. 54F. The Field Inspection Report and photographs of the property clearly show that Vishubag property is a residential house

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

house property u/s 54F to Rs 28,00,000 only, as against claim made of Rs. 1,08,22,354/- and the deduction u/s 54F was recomputed proportionally as per provision of section

ZAFAR IQBAL,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1170/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Section 250Section 54F

house property in order to claim\ndeduction u/s 54F of the Act.\n6.2 The Ld. CIT(A) considered the order of the Ld. AO, has reproduced\nthe provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SHERIAR PHIROJSHA IRANI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2835/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisandwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR

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

54F of the Act, on ground that at time of sale of capital asset, assessee was owner of more than one residential house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner of said property, deduction under section

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

ITA 376/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

54F of the Act against the cost of plot of land as well as\nconstruction expenses incurred for residential house property. Therefore addition made of\nRs.4,24,08,090/- to the total income of the assessee on account of disallowance of section

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

ITA 368/NAG/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri M.G.Moryani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

section 54F as the assessee owned more than once residential house at the time of transfer, therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 3] On the facts and circumstances the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not considering as per law and on the facts of the case in confirming that the properties

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

For Appellant: Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

54F on purchase of two residential house property which is not allowable and as per provisions of section 54F of the IT Act, 1961, assessee

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

ITA 341/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

54F of the Act, on ground that at time of sale of capital asset, assessee was owner of more than one residential house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner of said property, deduction under section

ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD vs. KESAVA KUMAR KUNAPUREDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 937/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 54ESection 54F

54F, the assessee needs to invest the net consideration (gross consideration received from sale of property – TDS deducted on sale consideration) and if the assessee invests the net consideration either for construction of house property or for purchase of house property, in our considered view, the assessee satisfies the conditions provided under Section

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

properties and the share and earned the capital gain. Related to section 54 on sale of residential house, the assessee claimed exemption for purchasing the residential house. Related to section 54F

SHWETA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3528/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 250Section 54F

54F of the Act, on ground that at time of sale of capital asset, assessee was owner of more than one residential house properties, in view of fact that one residential property was co-jointly owned in name of assessee and his wife and he could not be treated as 'absolute owner of said property, deduction under section

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs. THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 54F

54F of the Act, which amounted to Rs.3,86,86,482/-. 4.1 Further he directed the AO to examine the issue of the Annual letting value of these residential house properties, identified by him to be owned by the assessee, to be taxable under the head “Income from house property“ as per Section

SMT. MARIES JOSEPH,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 566/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

house but does not explicitly say whether in India or abroad. The argument of the ld AR is that section 54F in its entirely is brought in to promote the real estate industry in India and therefore the proviso should be read in conjuncture with the main section where the deduction is allowable only for investment in property