Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Kesavan Vanithamani Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Kesavan Vanithamani Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Section 54F deduction allowed – Commercial tannery not a residential house; Protective LTCG addition deleted – ITAT Chennai In Kesavan Vanithamani vs ITO (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19), the dispute arose from taxation of capital gains on transfer of land under a joint development agreement and denial of exemption u/s 54F. The AO taxed entire capital gain in A.Y. 2017-18 and denied deduction holding that the assessee owned more than one house property. The ITAT noted that the assessee owned one residential house and one tannery building, which was a ...
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

Stamp Duty vs Actual Value Dispute: ITAT Orders DVO Valuation ITAT Bangalore Remands ₹49L Sec 68 Addition & ₹3.74L TDS Disallowance for Fresh Verification Penalty U/s 272A(1)(d) Deleted: Reasonable Cause Subsequent Compliance Accepted Vague Purpose in Form 10? ITAT Gives Trust a Second Chance Foreign Tax Credit Cannot Be Denied for Late Form 67 – Bang ITAT Allows Substantive Relief 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Your email address will not be published.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 *

Ads Free tax News and Updates
Search Post by Date
April 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930