Which cases are most cited on Section 54EC?

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83) — 159 citing judgments; DCIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind Ltd. (329 ITR 479) — 49 citing judgments; Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (53 ITR 283) — 29 citing judgments; CIT v. Mewar Oil and General Mills Ltd. (No. 1) (271 ITR 311) — 24 citing judgments; Surendra Engineering Corporation v. ACIT (86 ITD 121) — 21 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 54EC?

BharatTax indexes 95 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act?

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83) is the decision most relied on for Section 54EC, cited in 159 judgments. The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to refer the valuation of property to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) when an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation or if there is a discrepancy between the actual sale consideration and the guideline value. This reference is mandatory, even if not explicitly requested by the assessee, to ensure a realistic fair market value and avoid injustice.

The decision most relied on for Section 54EC is Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (372 ITR 83), cited in 159 of the 95 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 54EC

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT

372 ITR 83 · 2015 · High Court

159

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is duty-bound to refer the valuation of property to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 50C(2) when an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation or if there is a discrepancy between the actual sale consideration and the guideline value. This reference is mandatory, even if not explicitly requested by the assessee, to ensure a realistic fair market value and avoid injustice.

DCIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind Ltd.

329 ITR 479 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

Amortization claimed on capitalized leasehold land, which is reported as an asset in the balance sheet, is an allowable deduction for income-tax purposes.

Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

53 ITR 283 · 1964 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Payment received for refraining from carrying on a competitive business is treated as a capital receipt. High Courts may misinterpret prior Supreme Court judgments like Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd. in their decisions.

CIT v. Mewar Oil and General Mills Ltd. (No. 1)

271 ITR 311 · 2004 · High Court

citing judgments

Surendra Engineering Corporation v. ACIT

86 ITD 121 · 2003 · ITAT

citing judgments

CIT v. Project Automobiles

167 ITR 781 · 1987 · High Court

citing judgments

Mumbai) 3. ITO v. Rasiklal N Satra

98 ITD 335 · 2006 · ITAT

citing judgments

Dr. P.K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT

252 CTR 336 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

M.J. Siwani v. CIT

53 Taxmann.com 318 · 2015 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Global Vantedge P. Ltd.

354 ITR 21 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 54EC

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 1 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. BHARAT LAKHAJI NANDWANA, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1366/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. UktiFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ukti

Section 49Section 54Section 54E

NIRMALABEN KAMLESHBHAI CONTRACTOR,VADODARA vs. ASSTT. UNIT,CURRENT JURIS.-THE ITO,WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblenirmalaben Kamleshbhai Assessment Unit, Vs. Contractor, Income Tax Department, At & Post Sama Gam, Current Jurisdiction Ao Near Gujarati School, Income Tax Officer, Jalaram Mandir, Ward 1(3)(1) Chhani Rd., Vadodara. Vadodara-390024. [Pan : Amipc4384 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 50CSection 54E

SHAMIMA HASEENATHUL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3021/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 115BSection 54ESection 54FSection 68

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

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 Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

HARIPRASAD VEDASUBRAMANIAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

ITA 6499/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 54ESection 80G

PADMAJA RAJESH HARVE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5343/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethpadmaja Rajesh Harve Vs. Acit-41(1)(1) Room No. 425, 4Th Floor, Kautilyabhavan, 1201-A, 64 Greens Building, Tagore Road, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandrakurla Santacruz West, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai -400051. Pan/Gir No:Aaxph1769E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 45Section 47Section 47ASection 54Section 54F

SUBHASH SURYAKANT PHADKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 35(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed in above terms

ITA 3490/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Mr. Subhash Suryakant Phadkar, Income Tax Officer, B-184, Kalpataru Sparkle, Bandra East, Ward 35(3)(4), Vs. Mumbai- 400051 Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- 400051 Pan No.Aaapp3456H (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Makadia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54Section 54E

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 234/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

JIGAR BHARAT SHETH (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI BHARAT KUMAR MANILAL SHETH ),MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7317/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjigar Bharat Sheth (Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(1)(2), Late Shri Bharatkumar Manilal Mumbai. Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, 407, Vashi, Sheth). 43, Savani Apartment, 8Th Floor, Navi Mumbai-400703. M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-400077. Pan/Gir No:Aedps3883E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Nilesh Kariya Respondent By Shri Kavitha Kaushik (Sr Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 159Section 250Section 54F

RINA RAY,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2),, DARJEELING

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

ITA 2262/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2262/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Rina Ray,………….………………….………...……Appellant C/O. Amit Kumar Ray, St. Josoph School Road, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal [Pan:Bhipr4602M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Darjeeling, 27/19, Ajc Bose Road, Near Lal Kuthi, P.O. & P.S. Darjeeling, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 148Section 45Section 50CSection 54E

THULASI CHAMARTHY,CHITTOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1374/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 54Section 54F

MUKESHBHAI CHIMANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 801/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmukeshbhai Chimanlal Patel, National Faceless Appeal Vs. 2, Nishant Bunglows, Centre, Delhi. Satellite, (Present Ahmedabad-380015. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad.) [Pan :Axhpp4546 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Pf Jain, Ar Respondent By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri PF Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 54ESection 80D

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

JHANSI LAKSHMI RAMANADHAM,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 886/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.886/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi Vs. Income Tax Officer Ramanadham Ward 8 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpr3566K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Jhansi Lakshmi Ramanadham, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 30.05.2024 For The A.Y 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, It Is Seen That There Is A Delay Of 292 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. Ar”) Submitted That The Assessee Is Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: : Shri Arun Kumar, Sr. DR

KANNAKI,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1972/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1972 & 1970/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 270ASection 54E

KANNAKI,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1970/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1972 & 1970/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 270ASection 54E

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

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 965/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 964/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

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

Showing 1–20 of 95 · Page 1 of 5