Income Tax : A consolidated guide to Income-tax Act threshold limits for AY 2026-27 covering exemptions, deductions, TDS, TCS, compliance and p...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. Aggregating gains from multiple t...
Income Tax : Learn the exemptions available under Sections 54 to 54GB of the Income-tax Act, including eligible investments, timelines, exempti...
Income Tax : This article examines conflicting judicial views on whether capital gains exemption is available when a new residential house is p...
Income Tax : Section 54 grants exemption on long-term capital gains from the sale of a residential house because the proceeds are reinvested in...
Income Tax : Representation against Extension of time limit under section 54 to 54GB without extension of Income Tax Return due date Vidarbha I...
CA, CS, CMA, Income Tax : We have not noticed any heed being extended towards various issues and possible solutions we have proposed through those represent...
Income Tax : KSCAA has requested to Hon’ble Minister of Finance to extend various time limits under section 54 to 54GB of the Income-tax Act,...
Income Tax : All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (CZ) has requested CBDT that due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1) for all the ...
Income Tax : Direct Taxes Committee of ICAI has Request(s) for extension of various due dates under Income-tax Act, 1961 especially Tax Audit R...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata condoned appeal delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remanded the assessment for fresh adjudication after grantin...
Income Tax : ITAT held that Section 54 permits exemption where capital gains from more than one residential house are invested in a single resi...
Income Tax : ITAT held that exemption under Sections 54/54F cannot be denied where sale proceeds are invested in a residential house within the...
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 : The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by treating capital gains as business income w...
CA, CS, CMA : The ICAI Disciplinary Committee reprimanded CA Jayant Ishwardas Mehta for professional misconduct involving an incorrect income t...
Income Tax : For claiming exemption Section 54 to 54 GB of the Act, for which last date falls between 01st April. 2021 to 28th February, 2022 m...
Income Tax : Vide Income Tax Notification No. 35/2020 dated 24.06.2020 govt extends Due date for ITR for FY 2018-19 upto 31.07.2020, Last...
Income Tax : Notification No. 44/2012-Income Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 54, sub-section (2) of secti...
ITAT Chennai ruled that a delay in property registration due to the builder cannot deny a Section 54 deduction if the capital gains were reinvested on time. Timely payments, not registration, are the key requirement.
Gujarat High Court held that petitioner being 100% EOU of zero-rated supply without payment of tax is entitled for refund of unutilized ITC. Since petitioner is not deemed exporter para no.2.2 of clarificatory Circular No.172/04/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 would not be applicable.
The Madras High Court ruled that Section 54F of the Income Tax Act can cover multiple residential units purchased from capital gains, reversing the ITAT’s single-flat restriction.
Tribunal held that Section 54F allows exemption only for one residential unit. The assessee’s claim for a second flat was rejected, affirming that multiple units do not qualify unless treated as a single house.
The Tribunal held that the assessee established a prima facie case regarding deduction eligibility for habitable-unit expenditure.
Additions for alleged on-money payments were disallowed because the evidence relied on by authorities contained errors and lacked authenticity. The decision highlights the need for corroborated, primary evidence in tax proceedings.
Tribunal remanded the case to the AO to reassess ULIP maturity receipts treated as unexplained investment after the exemption claim was not evaluated earlier.
The Tribunal held that fractional or joint ownership in residential property does not violate the Section 54F condition unless the assessee is the exclusive owner. Deduction was allowed because co-ownership cannot trigger the proviso.
Karnataka High Court held that payments made at the time of search cannot be construed as voluntary under section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the payments made in form DRC-03.
Tribunal found the appellate order non-speaking, failing to consider multiple submissions including 54F claims and compensation deductions. The matter is remanded for comprehensive review and proper opportunity of hearing.
