Case Law Details
Case Name : Shri Radhey Shyam Arora Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Jaipur)
Related Assessment Year : 2008- 09
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Jaipur
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Shri Radhey Shyam Arora Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Jaipur)
It is apparent that the assessee did not disclose the transaction of sale of house and the AO completed the assessment by making the addition on account of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee claimed the benefit of section 54 on account of investment made in purchase of new house. The ld. CIT(A) denied the claim of the assessee on the ground that the new house was purchase in the name of his wife. At t
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
what should be the base rate in 2001 for claiming Indexation on long term capital gain for sale of house property in 2018 which was purchased in 1995.
Firstly thanks ..
AY 2008-09
Judge/gment — Dec, 2017 ??
How is it different from the existing ‘Judicial Updates’ u/s 54 & 54F ??
Since, the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the IT Act is allowed, therefore, another ground raised by the assessee of enhancement of income by the Id. CIT(A) become infructuous.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13/12/2017.
when the entire investment for the purchase of new house has gone through the assessee’s account then the benefit u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied on the ground the new house was purchased in the name of wife. Hence, the claim of the assessee u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act is allowed.
Good Judgement ,