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 brief facts of the case are that the assessee case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was issued and served upon the assessee requiring him to furnish necessary details and documents along with supporting evidence.
Shri Arun Kumar Jain Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) The A.O. noted that as per Section 54(2) of the I.T. Act, the amount of capital gain, which is not utilized by him for the purchase of new asset before the date of furnishing the ITR under section 139, shall be deposited by him, before furnishing such […]
Explore Amit Parekh’s appeal against the denial of Section 54 exemption by ITAT Kolkata. Key details of the case and legal insights revealed.
As Prior to assessment year 2015-16 no restriction was placed by the legislature in respect of investments in the residential houses that an assessee could make for claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act. We thus are of the view that the claim of deduction raised by the assessee under section 54 in respect of investment made towards purchase of residential house at Mumbai and Pune was well in order.
Section 54 no where defines the quantum of construction on the land so as to be eligible to be defined as a residential unit. The only condition is that there should be a residential house capable of being used as a residence by any person.
ACIT v. Shrey Sharma Guleri (ITAT Mumbai) The argument of the learned D.R. is that the basement in the house cannot be termed as a residential house within the provisions of section 54 of the Act. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee defended the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. It was pleaded that basement is part and parcel of the residential unit, therefore, it cannot be termed as a separate unit.
Word own in s. 54F would include only the case where a residential house is fully and wholly owned by assessee and consequently would not include a residential house owned by more than one person.
Various courts have held that if assessee invests the amount in purchase / construction of building within the stipulated period and the construction is in progress, then the benefits of exemptions under section 54 / 54F, cannot be denied to the assessee.
In Mr. Ravi Shankar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) proclaimed in its recent order that pre- amended capital gain under section 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961 can be availed for two residential houses.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in allowing the assessees appeal relying on the decision of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Smt. K.G. Ruminiamma (2011 )331 ITR 211 when the facts of the case are distinguishable from the assessee’s case. In the case of Smt. K.G Ruminiamma
