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...
The Tribunal ruled that compensation and hardship allowance received during redevelopment are capital receipts and cannot be taxed as income from other sources.
Orrisa High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount refunded with respect to IGST paid on ocean freight. Accordingly, competent authority is directed to pay simple interest @6% per annum on amount of refund.
The tax authorities denied Section 54 relief citing delay in completing construction. The Tribunal ruled that Section 54 is a beneficial provision and does not mandate full completion within three years.
The issue was whether third-party diaries and loose papers could establish receipt of unaccounted income. The Tribunal ruled that such papers, without authorship verification or corroboration, cannot fasten tax liability.
The issue was whether sale involved only land or land with a residential house. The Tribunal ruled that the property sold included a residential structure, entitling the assessee to Section 54 exemption upon deposit in the capital gains scheme.
The Tribunal upheld exemption where the assessee invested the entire capital gain within time but possession was delayed due to builder-related litigation. The ruling confirms that investment, not possession, is the key requirement under Section 54F.
The Tribunal held that land cost must be allocated based on saleable/built-up area under the JDA, not total land area. It directed adoption of a higher per-sq-ft land cost while recomputing capital gains.
The Tribunal held that an enforceable agreement to sell, supported by advance consideration, constitutes transfer under Section 2(47), entitling the assessee to Section 54 relief.
The Tribunal confirmed that only ₹10 lakh received by the assessee could be taxed. Addition based on total sale value was held unsustainable.
The issue was whether a penalty can survive when the show cause notice fails to specify the exact charge. ITAT held that a vague notice violates law, making the entire penalty unsustainable.
