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

Cash Withdrawn Earlier Cannot Become ‘Unexplained Cash’ on Re-Deposit: ITAT Bangalore SC Slams Casual Sanction of ₹8 Cr Loan After Borrower Defaults From Day One Inheritance Isn’t a Birthright When a Valid Will Exists: SC Interest on Bank Deposits Can Still Qualify for 80P Deduction- Bangalore ITAT Gives Relief to Credit Co-operative Society SC: Interest on Borrowed Funds Allowed Even for Investment Through Group Concerns – Commercial Expediency Prevails 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Your email address will not be published.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
May 2026
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031