Income Tax : This explains why recent income disclosure intimations lack statutory support and create uncertainty. The key takeaway is that vag...
Income Tax : Explains when home-loan interest can be added to the cost of acquisition and how the AY 2024-25 amendment blocks double benefits. ...
Income Tax : This guide explains the concept, calculation formula, and notified values of CII from 2001-02 to 2025-26, as per CBDT. A must-read...
Income Tax : Learn whether PMS fees can be deducted from capital gains under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This article explains the ...
Income Tax : Summary: As per the Finance Act 2024, the long-term capital gains (LTCG) tax on listed securities has been raised from 10% to 12.5...
Income Tax : Calculate Long term capital gain on sale of capital Assets other then shares with the help of Indexation.- We have given below the...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that TDS credit cannot be denied where the employer deducted tax but failed to deposit it. Recovery must be made ...
Income Tax : ITAT held ₹33 crore settled rights over the entire land, allowing full indexed acquisition cost and rejecting proportionate rest...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. The benefit cannot be restric...
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT held that allegations of capitation fee collections could not justify denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 ...
Income Tax : The Mumbai ITAT held that ownership premises received under a redevelopment scheme are acquired in exchange for valuable tenancy r...
Corporate Law : Explore the new Competition Commission of India (CCI) Lesser Penalty Regulations 2024. Learn about conditions, procedures, and ben...
Custom Duty : Stay informed about the Union Budget 2024-25 changes in ICES. Learn how the Directorate General of Systems manages updates and the...
ITAT Mumbai held that TDS credit cannot be denied where the employer deducted tax but failed to deposit it. Recovery must be made from the employer, not the employee.
ITAT held ₹33 crore settled rights over the entire land, allowing full indexed acquisition cost and rejecting proportionate restriction by the AO.
The ITAT held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. The benefit cannot be restricted to one new house merely because multiple houses were transferred.
Bangalore ITAT held that allegations of capitation fee collections could not justify denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 without proof of statutory violations. The Tribunal followed binding precedent in the assessee’s own case and upheld its charitable status.
The Mumbai ITAT held that ownership premises received under a redevelopment scheme are acquired in exchange for valuable tenancy rights and cannot be treated as having a nil cost. It directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair market value of the surrendered tenancy rights for recomputing capital gains.
The ITAT held that proceeds from the sale of ancestral immovable property are taxable under the head Capital Gains” and not Income from Other Sources. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation after considering the assessee’s documents.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the doctrine of merger did not bar revision under Section 263 because the applicability of Section 50C was never considered during the reassessment or appellate proceedings. It upheld the revision while directing fresh consideration of the property’s valuation through the prescribed statutory mechanism.
ITAT Chennai held that indexation on construction cost cannot be denied when details of the building are already contained in the registered sale deed and its annexure. The Tribunal directed recomputation of capital gains after allowing indexed construction cost.
ITAT deleted the addition after finding that neither possession nor ownership had passed during the relevant assessment year. The decision emphasizes that actual transfer, not mere intention to sell, determines taxability.
The Delhi High Court held that ₹25 lakh paid under a prior agreement to sell was deductible under Section 48(i) as it was incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the eventual transfer of the property.
