Section 54D of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.84

Section 54D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 84 (Capital gains on compulsory acquisition of lands and buildings not to be charged in certain cases) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 84 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 54D is Atul G. Puranik v. ITO (132 ITD 499), cited in 43 of the 33 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 54D

Atul G. Puranik v. ITO
132 ITD 499 · 2011 · ITAT
43
citing judgments

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a deeming provision, applies only to the transfer of "land or building or both" and therefore does not apply to the transfer of leasehold rights.

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. M. J. Siwani
366 ITR 356 · 2014 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Supreme Court does not necessarily mean the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision, but rather that it found no reason to interfere with the High Court's ruling. The Karnataka High Court in CIT v. M. J. Siwani held that ownership or co-ownership of property is a crucial factor for claiming deduction under Section 54F.

Ashok G. Chauhan v. Asstt. CIT
176 ITD 717 · 2019 · ITAT
8
citing judgments
Mrs Rekha Agarwal v. ITO
79 Taxmann.com 290 · 2017 · ITAT
7
citing judgments
ITO v. Upkar Retail (P.) Ltd.
171 ITD 626 · 2018 · ITAT
5
citing judgments
Noida Cyber Park (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 18(4), New Delhi
123 Taxmann.com 213 · 2021 · Reported
4
citing judgments
Siwani v. CIT
232 Taxmann 335 · 2015 · Supreme Court
4
citing judgments
Shree Laxmi Estate (P) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward
108 Taxmann.com 195 · 2019 · ITAT
3
citing judgments
11 ITR (T) 120 (Mumb. Trib.); (iii) Noida Cyber Park (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
113 Taxmann.com 349 · 2020 · Reported
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 54D

Mohd Azam Hasan Sheikh, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9263/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sandeep Gosain & Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: BIOPS8470H
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 270A(6)Section 270A(9)Section 54Section 54D

Geeta Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward -62 (1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2087/DEL/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

Paras Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (2), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 548/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54F

DCIT, Circle 52(1), New Delhi vs. Bhupinder Singh Bhalla, New Delhi

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2964/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Respondent: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Adv. (Virtual) S/Shri
Section 142(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54B

Vivek Industries, Vijayawada vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

ITA 133/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.133/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Vivek Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8-1, Kamayyathopu Kanuru, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aanfm5215A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 20/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 150Section 54DSection 54F

Late Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Kahar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vapi

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

ITA 45/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.45/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Lt.Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Vapi -396 191 Vs. Kahar, Flat No.104, Lake Castle, Pal, Nr. Jainam, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb 6752 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mukesh Mandowara, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54B

Nutrela Marketing P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 3910/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 50Section 50C

Ayyub Jafri, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow

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

ITA 177/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 80J

Simmi Batra, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-32(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6143/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

Mallikarjunaiah Adveeshaiah Hullukunte, Bengaluru vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54D

Teckmen Systems, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the above terms

ITA 28/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G. P. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh, SR. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 50CSection 55A

Inderpal Singh Chadha, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 21/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 45Section 54

Rejeshri Omprakash Malviya, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1) (Previously Ward-4(1)(3)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1053/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54BSection 54G

Manoj Kumar Ekambaram Arcot, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1730/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar .S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 234ASection 54Section 54B

Equitable Marketing Association, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-30, Kolkata.

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1226/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1226/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Equitable Marketing Association…………………… ........................……Appellant 82, Baburam Ghosh Road, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700040. [Pan: Aaaae0345D] Vs. Acit, Circle-30, Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Arbitrary, Bad In Law & Facts & The Ld. Cit(A), Erred In Confirming The Same In Part. 2. That The Ld. A.O Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,36,67,806/- By Invoking Sec. 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Same In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition U/S 50C Was At All Called For.

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54D

Shivdeeep Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 484/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 50C

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. A R Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 570/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 50C

Shri Amritpal Singh (Prop), Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 425/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 110Section 263Section 54D

Narendra Shantikumar Firodia, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar

ITA 494/PUN/2020[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 494/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Narendra Shantikumar Firodia, 5 Shobha Sadan, Aurangabad Road, Dsp Chowk, Ahmednagar – 414 002 Pan :Aabpf6158K . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmednagar. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri C. H. Naniwadekar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath Murkunde सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 13/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 20/03/2020 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Upholding The Order Of Assessment Dt. 28/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri C. H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50C

Jagabandhu Das, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B