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...
Courts held that exemption cannot be denied merely due to lack of registration if possession and substantial payment are proven. The ruling emphasizes substance over procedural formalities.
The Tribunal held that where registration is delayed, the stamp duty value on the agreement date must be considered. The ruling applies the beneficial proviso to Section 50C retrospectively.
The Tribunal held that different floors of the same building constitute one residential house. Deduction under Section 54 cannot be denied on the ground of structural division.
The issue was denial of deduction under Section 54F as a fresh claim not made in return. The ruling remanded the matter, holding such claims can be examined if supported by facts.
ITAT ruled that deduction under Section 54F can be raised during reassessment if it relates to the income under scrutiny. The case clarifies that reassessment scope includes such connected claims.
The ITAT held that the PCIT cannot invoke revisionary powers when the same issue is already pending before the appellate authority. The case involved share transaction additions treated as penny stock.
The Tribunal ruled that an unregistered agreement does not invalidate exemption if possession is taken and payment is made. The term purchase under Section 54 was interpreted broadly.
The Tribunal held that booking a flat in an under-construction project qualifies as construction. Since possession was obtained within three years, full deduction under section 54 was allowed.
The Tribunal set aside the order as the CIT(A) failed to examine judicial precedents cited by the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with proper reasoning.
The Tribunal held reopening valid as tangible material showed undisclosed capital gains. It ruled that execution of a registered sale deed triggers tax liability even if consideration is disputed.
