Income Tax : The new law treats gains from depreciable assets as short-term capital gains for all purposes, not merely for computation. This ef...
Income Tax : Courts held that investment in under-construction property qualifies as construction under Sections 54/54F. Deduction cannot be de...
Income Tax : Courts held that exemption cannot be denied merely due to lack of registration if possession and substantial payment are proven. T...
Income Tax : The Finance Act 2023 introduced a 12.5% LTCG tax without indexation as an alternative to 20% with indexation. Taxpayers must compa...
Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that Section 54 focuses on timely investment of capital gains, not rigid legal ownership milestones. The ...
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 : The Delhi High Court held that additional documents already referred to in a criminal complaint can be filed later under Section 3...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that for under-construction properties, the date of possession is the relevant factor for Section 54 exemption. ...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that selling only open land, even if earlier part of a residential property, does not qualify as transfer of a r...
Income Tax : The issue was denial of capital gains exemption due to claim under wrong section. The tribunal held that a genuine claim cannot be...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai set aside the appellate order and remanded issues on protective addition, Section 54F exemption, and TDS credit misma...
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...
Though assessee had not become owner of property in question because there was no registered sale deed executed by vendor, however, becoming the owner of the property in question was not required for the purpose of section 54/54F and, therefore, no deduction could be denied to assessee.
Requirement of section 54 in the second limb is that capital gain should be used in construction of residential house and nothing more. Assessee in the instant case was the owner of super-structure constructed by utilizing capital gain and it was clear from the lease deed by which land over which construction had been put up was given on lease to assessee, therefore, deduction under sections 54 could not be disallowed.
Once an agreement to sell is executed in favour of some person, the said person gets a right to get the property transferred in his favour and, consequently, some right of the vendor is extinguished. Therefore, the agreement to sell which had been executed on 13th August 2010 was considered as the date on which the property, i.e. the agricultural land, had been transferred instead of 3rd July 2012 on which the sale-deed came to be executed and assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of section 54F as it had invested in purchase of residential house on 22nd April 2010 which was within the prescribed time limit.
Assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54 even if he had not taken possession nor the purchase deed had been executed within the period of three years because the delay in obtaining possession and getting purchase deed executed was on account of the developer and was by reason beyond the control of assessee.
Mrs. A. Vijayakumari Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The provisions of section 54 of the Act are beneficial and are to be considered liberally for reasonable bonafide cause but investment in residential property is mandatory which is not in dispute in this case. The Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the case law relied on […]
Assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54 on long term capital gain on sale of properties as the holding period of the asset should be considered from the date of acquisition of asset in the light of agreement to sale, but not from the date of possession of the property.
Pr. CIT Vs Mr. Peter Savio Pereira (Bombay High Court) The Tribunal notices that the assessee had received sale consideration partly in cash and partly in form of new flats to be constructed and to be allotted to the assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly came to the conclusion that the assessee’s investment in such new […]
Shri Ram Narayan Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) Conclusion: Since assessee purchased land through an agreement to sale which was unregistered and the payment was made in cash, therefore, in absence of sale deed, the unregistered agreement would not transfer any title to assessee of the agricultural land, accordingly, the claim of deduction under section 54B […]
When an HUF’s residential house is sold, the capital gain should be invested for the purchase of only one residential house is an incorrect proposition. After all, the HUF property is held by the members as joint tenants. The members keeping in view the future needs in event of separation, purchase more than one residential building, it cannot be said that the benefit of exemption is to be denied under s. 54(1) of the IT Act.
ACIT Vs Ashwin S. Bhalekar Beamon Chambers (ITAT Mumbai) Claim of the assessee that extinguishment of rights in the capital asset is a transfer of capital asset and capital gains and consequent allowance of claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act. The facts clearly show that the extinguishment of assessee’s right in Flat […]
