Income Tax : ITAT held that execution of a registered joint development agreement amounts to transfer of land. Capital gains timing must be det...
Income Tax : Learn about capital gains tax exemptions under Sections 54 to 54GB of the Income Tax Act, conditions for eligibility, and withdraw...
Income Tax : This report provides a consolidated overview of the critical monetary threshold limits stipulated under various sections of the In...
Income Tax : Sections 54 to 54GA allow capital gains exemptions if sale proceeds are reinvested in specific assets. These cover residential pro...
Income Tax : Overview of exemptions and allowances for salaried employees, taxpayers, and businesses under various Income Tax provisions for AY...
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 : The case addresses whether third-party cultivation affects Section 54B eligibility. The Tribunal ruled that use of land for agricu...
Income Tax : The ITAT relied on surrounding circumstances, documentary evidence, and the principle of human probabilities to conclude that cash...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act allowed since assessee is able to prove the nature of land ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal deleted addition under Section 69C, holding that payments made by company on behalf of director were properly explain...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that Section 2(22)(e) cannot apply where the assessee held less than 10% shareholding in the lending company. As s...
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...
The Tribunal condoned a 506-day delay after accepting that the appeal was filed only when heavy penalty exposure created prosecution risk. The key takeaway is that bona fide reliance on legal advice and later developments can constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
The Tribunal held that once reassessment is validly initiated, the Assessing Officer can tax any escaped income discovered later. Additions need not relate to the original reopening reason.
The issue was whether receipt of shares on amalgamation attracts tax when shares are held as stock-in-trade. The Court held such substitution can trigger business income under Section 28 if the shares are realisable, reinforcing the real income principle.
The Supreme Court examined whether shares received on amalgamation can be taxed as business income when held as stock-in-trade. It ruled that tax arises only if the substitution results in a real, commercially realizable gain, not a mere statutory replacement.
The ITAT held that land-levelling and fencing expenses are integral to acquiring agricultural land and qualify for section 54B deduction. The ruling clarifies what constitutes eligible investment despite restricting unregistered costs.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty could be levied for claiming excess deduction under sections 54F and 54B. It held that an inadvertent and promptly corrected mistake does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The issue was whether failure to deposit unutilised capital gains in CGAS before the due date defeats Section 54B relief. The ITAT held that where eligible agricultural land is purchased within time and cheques are issued with sufficient balance, CGAS non-deposit is only procedural. Full exemption was therefore allowed.
The Tribunal held that section 54 relief cannot be denied merely because the new property was purchased in the spouse’s name. It ruled that actual investment of capital gains is the key requirement.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits are explained when supported by corresponding withdrawals, even without precise mapping. Once the assessee shows availability of funds, the onus shifts to the AO to rebut the explanation. The addition under Section 69A was deleted in full.
ITAT rules that an additional 54B claim omitted in the original return cannot be mechanically rejected. AO must examine the claim on merits, verifying capital gains utilisation and statutory conditions.
