Case Law Details
Case Name : Shri Rajkumar Mandhani Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
Related Assessment Year : 2012-13
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Hyderabad
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
Shri Rajkumar Mandhani Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
In the case before us, the assessee and his wife are independent income tax assessees and the assessee already owned one house at Kilpauk, Chennai. The assessee therefore, cannot be said to have invested in order to avoid capital gains to tax in his hands, as u/s 54F(1), the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 54F even if he already holds one property in his name. Therefore, the investment by the assessee of the capital gains in purchase or construction of a residential house
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.
Similar case is going on in regard to Benami Properties Act before DGIT and also pending before Hon’ble Calcutta Highcourt-Ref Case-32118/2014,order dated16th june,2015 passed by Dr.Sambuddha Chakraborty,Hon,ble judge.Another same case pending before the judge case no-FA 184 OF 2017 WITH CAN 12045/2017.
Also pending before 5th court Jr.Division-Civil judges court Howrah-Title suite-9328/2014 and 6220/2014 in regard to illegal mutation,illegal construction and Mis use of Ad interim injunction.
Kindly check .All properties are obtained benami name and muated by Block land and reforms department -Govt of W.B ALONG WITH ORDER OF DEMOLITION ILLEGAL PART BY HOWRAH ZILLA PARISHAD FROM 2012 ON WARDS.