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...
The issue involved additions based on mismatch between property registration and payment dates. The Tribunal held that delayed encashment of cheques does not indicate unexplained investment. It concluded that the additions lacked factual basis and directed deletion.
The Tribunal held that total investment in the new property must be considered for exemption, not just payments within one year. It allowed full capital gains exemption as conditions were substantially met.
The Tribunal held that deposit in the capital gains scheme is not required if the entire amount is invested before filing the return. The claim was allowed subject to verification.
The issue involved taxing capital gains from a development agreement in multiple years. The court held the same income cannot be taxed twice and set aside the addition subject to verification.
Section 54/54F deduction allowed by ITAT Bangalore despite incomplete documents, as substantive investment in house construction was proven through JDA, sample bills, and bank records-technical lapses cannot defeat genuine exemption claims.
Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In , the ITAT Bangalore deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that mere disallowance or change in head of income does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had: Shown rental income partly as rent and partly as hire charges (under business income) Claimed Section […]
The Tribunal clarified that filing of original return is not mandatory for claiming exemption under Section 54. It directed verification of conditions and allowed relief if eligibility is established.
The case examines whether penalty applies when a deduction claim is disallowed. ITAT held that full disclosure and bona fide claim prevent penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
Courts held that investment in under-construction property qualifies as construction under Sections 54/54F. Deduction cannot be denied if investment is completed within the prescribed period, even if started earlier.
The Tribunal held that exemption cannot be denied merely because the purchase agreement was unregistered. Substantial payment and possession were considered sufficient for claiming relief.
