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

Shri Jignesh Kumar Shah, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. ACIT, Circle- 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/BIL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Jignesh Kumar Shah, Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Prop-Shah Jawaharalal Jethalal Jewellers, Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur(Cg) Pan No. : Ajgps 0536 G (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Assessee By : Shri Amit Maloo Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 11/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bilaspur, Dated 26.07.2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.A.O.Grossly Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.43,30,500/- In Respect Of Agricultural Land U/S 54B Of The Income Tax Act,1961 & Ld.Cit[A],Bilaspur Grossly Erred In Confirming The Same Without Appreciating The Facts In Its Right Perspective. Your Petitioner Submits That Same May Kindly Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.A.O.Further Grossly Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.5,24,200/- In Respect Of Expenditure U/S 40A(Ia) On Account Of Advertisment & Ld.Cit[A],Bilaspur Grossly Erred In Confirming The Same To The Extent Of Rs.4,76,700/- Without Appreciating The Facts In Its Right Perspective. Your Petitioner Submits That Same May Kindly Be Deleted. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.A.O.Further Grossly Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.50,000/- In Respect Of Misc Business Exps (Like Shop Exps,Printing & Stationery Etc) & Ld.Cit[A], Bilaspur Grossly Erred In Confirming The Same To The Extent Of Rs.10,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts In Its Right

For Appellant: Shri Amit Maloo Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR
Section 40aSection 54B

Sri Amitava Banerjee, Durgapur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kolkata, Durgapur

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

ITA 567/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 567/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Amitava Banerjee.............................……………………………………………..Appellant C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Chartered Accountants, A-4, Nandalal Bithi, City Centre, Ground Floor, Durgapur – 713 216 [Pan : Ahnpb 7336 E] D.C.I.T., Cir - 2...................………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Aayakar Bithi, Durgapur – 713 216 Appearances By: Shri V.N. Purohit, Ca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 01, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 05, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals), Durgapur Dated 18.01.2017 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On Facts, In Not Giving Any Decision On Ground No 1 Which Read As Follows: I. That The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Bad In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Cit(A) Has Likewise Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs. 23,77,816/- (Wrongly Stated In Ground As Rs. 13,90,737/-) Being Profit On Sale Of Agricultural Land. 3. That The Cit(A) Has Likewise Further Erred In Confirming Following Adhoc Disallowances Made By Assessing Officer. (A) Out Of Car Expenses Rs. 25,000/- (B) Out Of Maintenance Cost Of Officer Equipment Rs. 50,000/- (C) Expenses On Staff Training Rs. 88,400/- (D) Loss On Sale Of Asset Rs. 34,679/-

Section 148Section 54Section 54B