This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Additional evidence cannot be rejected for mere non-conformity with Rule 46A
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Nirmala Subramanian Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Mumbai)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2007-08
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Mumbai
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
Nirmala Subramanian Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Mumbai)
The short question in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 of the Act or not and what is the date of acquisition of new residential house for the purpose of deduction under Section 54 of the Act. Provision of Section 54 shows that whether any individual or a HUF invest, the capital gain arise on transfer of residential house within a period of 1 year before or two years after the date of transfer of the house property then the amount of capital gain invested in purchase of new house property,...




