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 : Tribunal held that a commercial tannery cannot be treated as a residential house merely because rent is taxed under “House Prope...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that incomplete villas incapable of occupation and held as business assets do not amount to residential houses. ...
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 : 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 issue was denial of capital gains exemption due to claim under wrong section. The tribunal held that a genuine claim cannot be...
Income Tax : The Court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny assessment. It ruled that reopenin...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai set aside the appellate order and remanded issues on protective addition, Section 54F exemption, and TDS credit misma...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that deposit in the capital gains scheme is not required if the entire amount is invested before filing the retu...
Income Tax : The Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings as they were based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. ...
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 ruled that Section 148A(b) requires a minimum of seven days for the assessee to respond. Failure to grant this statutory period renders the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings illegal.
Section 54F Deduction Remanded as Tenants’ Affidavits Suggest Commercial Use of Properties, No Addition Without Corroborative Evidence: ITAT Deletes ₹50 Lakh On-Money Addition in Property Deal and Presumption Under Section 132(4A) Cannot Be Applied Against Assessee When Documents Seized from Third Party
ITAT Mumbai held that the cost of acquisition in present case would be the FMV of the flats which the assessee has acquired in exchange of surrender of tenancy right to the developer. Accordingly, AO is directed to re-compute cost of acquisition.
ITAT Pune held that failure to deposit the entire amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme does not defeat Section 54F claim if full investment is made within the stipulated period. The ruling follows Karnataka High Court precedent. The addition of ₹91.45 lakh was deleted.
ITAT Hyderabad held that failure of the Assessing Officer to examine ownership of multiple houses while allowing Section 54F deduction made the order erroneous and prejudicial. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the relevant date for Section 54 is possession of the new residential house, not the agreement date. Since possession was taken within two years of sale, exemption was allowed.
Tribunal held that a commercial tannery cannot be treated as a residential house merely because rent is taxed under “House Property.” Section 54F exemption cannot be denied on such technical classification.
With the Section 50C addition and 54F disallowance deleted, the Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive. It emphasized that penalty cannot stand when the underlying additions are removed.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment completed after the taxpayer s death without issuing notice to legal heirs is void ab initio. Legal heirs are not obligated to inform the Revenue about the death.
The Tribunal held that once capital gains are correctly taxed in one assessment year, protective addition in another year cannot survive. Deduction under Section 54F was also allowed as conditions of the proviso were not met.
