Income Tax : ITAT ruled that exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied solely due to missing bills or vouchers, emphasizing the principle of...
Income Tax : Stay updated with key changes and precautions in filing your Income Tax Return for FY 2023-24 to avoid penalties and ensure accura...
Income Tax : Discover how Section 54 & 54F exemptions extend beyond property owners to include spouses and legal heirs. Explore recent ITAT rul...
Income Tax : Understand the key differences between Section 54 and Section 54F for LTCG exemption through investment in residential property. E...
Income Tax : Explore exemptions under capital gain with sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54EC, 54F, 54G, and 54GA. Eligibility, assets, limits, and lock-...
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 : ITAT Ahmedabad orders CIT(A) to reconsider the Section 54F exemption claim by Bhupendrabhai Punjabhai Patel after rejecting previo...
Income Tax : Summary of ITAT Raipur decision in Satish Agrawal vs. ITO. The case concerns denied exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai states holding period for capital gains should be computed from the allotment letter date, not the sale agreement regi...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that loss on sale of shares on recognized stock exchange with STT paid, is eligible to be set off against the lo...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Chennai's decision to grant full S.54F deduction for property purchase in wife's name out of a ...
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 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
The point of dispute relates to taxpayers entitlement to tax exemption as claimed under sec. 54F (of the IT Act), on the so- called roll over investment. This marks an instance being the latest in the long series of such disputes taken up for adjudication by courts in the recent past. Earlier, more or less a similar dispute that arose has been covered in a judgment of the Karnataka HC deciding the issue in taxpayer’s favor.
ACIT Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar Kapila (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that booking of flat with the builder has to be treated as construction of flat by the assessee and hence period of three years would apply for construction of new house from the date of transfer of long term capital asset. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has […]
Once assessee had invested sale proceeds of existing asset for the purpose of construction of new house within the time period specified under section 54F he could not be denied the benefit under the section, even if the assessee finally could not construct the new house within the specified period of three years.
Section 54F do not prescribe any condition as to the date of commencement of construction of new house property, meaning thereby that the construction of house property may be commenced even before the date of transfer of original asset.
These are appeals filed by two assessees who are wife and husband. One appeal in IT(IT)A No.12/Bang/2014 is by Smt.Veena Nambyar directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) -4, Bangalore dt.20.2.2014, in respect of the order of assessment passed. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dt.27.12.2011.
Assessee has invested more than the sale proceeds of the industrial gala for purchase of two flats. Respectfully following the decision of Karnataka High Court,we do not find any merit for decline of assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.54 for investment in two flats out of sale proceeds of long term capital gains within the stipulated period provided in the Act.
In this case, the assessee filed the return of income admitting total income of 98,820/-. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act) was carried out in the case of M/s. A.S. Steel Traders on 11.10.2012 and in the course of search, the document No.5019 of 2011 of SRO
It could not have been open to the authorities below to treat the payment of Rs 18,00,000 on account of furniture and fixtures on standalone basis, and thus exclude it as a separate item rather than as a cost of the residential house so purchased. In our considered view, therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 54F by treating entire amount of Rs 78,00000 as the “cost of the residential house” purchased within specified time limit under section 54.
Deduction under section 54F was in respect of capital gain arising in the hands of wife of assessee, should have been claimed in the return of income filed by the wife of assessee, therefore, claim of assessee under section 54F was liable to be rejected.
