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 : Explore the latest exemptions, deductions and allowances available under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. The guide covers salar...
Income Tax : The Income Tax Bill, 2025 renumbers Section 54F as Section 86 while retaining the existing conditions, computation, and exemption ...
Income Tax : Learn the exemptions available under Sections 54 to 54GB of the Income-tax Act, including eligible investments, timelines, exempti...
Income Tax : This guide explains the taxation of capital gains, computation methods, capital assets, and transfer provisions under the Income-t...
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 : Karnataka High Court held that reopening a completed scrutiny assessment without fresh tangible material is impermissible as it am...
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 : ITAT held ₹33 crore settled rights over the entire land, allowing full indexed acquisition cost and rejecting proportionate rest...
Income Tax : ITAT held that substantial construction and structural improvements satisfied Section 54F. AO was directed to allow the deduction....
Income Tax : The ITAT held that Section 54 exemption must be examined separately for each residential house sold. The benefit cannot be restric...
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...
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.
Holding Section 54F to be a beneficial provision, the Tribunal applied settled judicial principles to allow exemption where substantive conditions were met, directing deletion of the capital gains addition.
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 reassessment remains valid when no Section 143(2) notice is issued after a return is filed in response to Section 148. ITAT held such reassessment void, confirming that Section 143(2) is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
The ruling clarified that exemption under section 54F cannot be denied if it was not part of the reasons for reopening. Reassessment was quashed as the sole addition lay outside recorded grounds.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed after the assessee’s death, without impleading legal heirs, is a nullity in law. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment in accordance with section 159
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 issue was whether a second reassessment could be initiated on the same facts already examined earlier. The Tribunal held that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is invalid and quashed the reassessment.
The AO denied exemption relying on an inspector’s report citing minimal construction. The Tribunal held that documentary evidence showed a habitable residence, entitling exemption.
Madras High Court held that JDA executed in 1994, however, sale/ transfer of capital asset was taken place only in March 1999 when the sale deed was executed. Accordingly, capital gain was rightly offered for AYs 1999-2000 and hence exemption u/s. 54 rightly claimed.
