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

Dhansukhbhai Arjanbhai Kanani (HUF), Surat vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.605/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Dhansukhbhai Arjanbhai Kanani (Huf), Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(3), B-29/30, Laxman Nagar Co-Operative Surat. Society-2, Nr. Vasant Bhikha Ni Wadi, Lame Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaghd5954H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit( Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cas/3/503/2015-16 Dated 30.07.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 22.01.2016. 2. When This Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, Learned Counsel For The Assessee Invited Our Attention To The Order Dated 08.07.2021, Passed By The Division Bench Of This Tribunal In Assessee’S Group Case In Ita No.280/Srt/2018 For The Ay. 2013-14 On Identical & Similar Facts, Whereby The Issue Relating To Exemption Under Section 54B, When The Property Was Not Registered In The Name Of Huf But Registered In The Name Of One Of The Members Of Huf, Has Been Discussed & Adjudicated In Favour Of Assessee. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Present Appeal Is Squarely Covered By Assessment Year.2013-14 Dhansukhbhai A. Kanani (Huf) The Aforesaid Order Of The Tribunal, A Copy Of Which Was Also Placed Before The Bench.

For Appellant: Shri Kiran K. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT( DR)
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 54B