Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Indihaf Jamal Mohamed Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2016-17
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Indihaf Jamal Mohamed Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Registration Delay Not Fatal: Builder’s Delay Can’t Deny 54 Deduction- ITAT Says 54 Allowed If Payments Made in Time Assessee, a retired Assistant Registrar, sold his residential house on 16.09.2015 for Rs.60 lakh & claimed deduction u/s 54 after reinvesting Rs.48,00,114 in a flat at “Lake Dugar”, Ambattur. AO denied the claim solely because the registration of the new flat occurred on 24.01.2019—beyond one year—stating that “transfer has not taken place” within the stipulated time. FAA passed an ex-parte order upholding the disal...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Self-Employed Income Requires Up to Three-Year ITR Average for Motor Accident Compensation: SC A Registered Will Is Not Beyond Suspicion: SC 8% Income Estimate Based Solely on Bank Deposits Remanded: ITAT Bangalore Additions Made in Intimation U/s 143(1) Cannot Be Challenged in Appeal Against Scrutiny Assessment: ITAT Bangalore 2002 Haryana Remission Policy Governs; Contrary Earlier Ruling Per Incuriam: SC View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031