Section 54B of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.83

Section 54B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 83 (Capital gains on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes not to be charged in certain cases) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 83 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 54B is Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT (204 ITR 631), cited in 197 of the 814 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 54B

Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT
204 ITR 631 · 1993 · Supreme Court
197
citing judgments

The determinative test for whether land is agricultural land or a capital asset is its actual user for agricultural purposes, not merely ownership. An explicit intention to stop cultivation or convert the land to non-agricultural use can cause it to lose its agricultural character, making its sale proceeds chargeable to capital gains tax.

Sanjeev Lal v. CIT
365 ITR 389 · 2014 · Supreme Court
122
citing judgments

For claiming capital gains exemption under beneficial provisions like section 54, the 'date of transfer' can be the date of the agreement to sell, particularly when coupled with substantial advance consideration or an enforceable right, adopting a purposive and liberal interpretation to acknowledge the assessee's intent.

CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigha
105 ITR 133 · 1976 · Supreme Court
93
citing judgments

The character of land as agricultural land or a capital asset is a question of fact determined by the cumulative effect of all circumstances. Classification in revenue records alone is not conclusive evidence of agricultural use; actual agricultural operations must be proven.

CIT v. H. Holck Larsen
160 ITR 67 · 1986 · Supreme Court
58
citing judgments

The determination of whether a transaction involving the sale and purchase of shares (or other assets) constitutes a trading transaction (business income) or an investment (capital gains) is a mixed question of law and fact. Courts must consider cumulative factors, including the assessee's habitual dealing and the intention at the time of the initial acquisition, rather than applying abstract tests.

CIT v. Sambandam Udaykumar
345 ITR 389 · 2012 · High Court
50
citing judgments

Assessees are entitled to capital gains exemption under Section 54 or 54F if sale proceeds are invested in a residential house. This benefit applies even if the construction or purchase transaction is not fully completed.

Delhi in CIT v. Best Plastics (P) Ltd.
295 ITR 256 · 2007 · High Court
41
citing judgments

Assessment orders passed by an Assessing Officer are liable to be set aside if they disregard binding instructions or circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), especially concerning the selection of returns for scrutiny. The CBDT circulars are binding on all officers of the Income-tax department.

Petron Engg. Construction (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. CBDT & Ors.
175 ITR 523 · 1989 · Supreme Court
38
citing judgments

The established principle of interpreting tax laws in favour of the assessee does not apply to deductions, exemptions, and exceptions, which are only allowed when plainly authorised by law.

CIT v. Bhagwan Dass
272 ITR 367 · 2005 · High Court
32
citing judgments

An assessment order cannot be cancelled under section 263 solely on the grounds of inadequate enquiry or lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer if the view taken was tenable in law and on facts.

CIT v. Dinesh Verma
60 Taxmann.com 461 · 2015 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 54B for capital gains on sale of agricultural land cannot be allowed if the new property is purchased exclusively in the name of the assessee's wife.

Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT
260 ITR 599 · 2003 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry, making the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

Judgments on Section 54B

Sudam Sakharam Jadhav, Pune vs. ITO, Wad-8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2119/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2119/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sudam Sakharam Jadhav, The Income Tax Officer, Gat No.440, Jadhavwadi Vs Ward-8(3), Pune. Chikhali, Pune – 410501. Pan: Akgpj 6314 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-13, Dated 26.11.2019 For The A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Appreciating The Fact That Due To Valid & Sufficient Reasons Your Appellant Could Not Attend The Hearing & Without Considering The Merit Of The Case, Your Appellant Prays For Set Aside The Matter To The Cit (Appeals) In The Interest Of Principal Of Natural Justice. 2. Without Prejudice To The Above Ground, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned A.O. Erred In Restricting The Indexed Value Of 1981 To Rs. 1,22,796/- Against Rs. 15,82,423/- As Claimed By Your Appellant. Such Action Is Bad In Law As At The Relevant Point Of Time, Section 55A Of Income Tax Act Was Not Permitting Of Making Any Such Reference For Determining Value As On Sudam Sakharam Jadhav (A)

Section 54FSection 55A