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 : Introduction: The financial year 2023-24, corresponding to the assessment year 2024-25, introduces significant amendments that imp...
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 : Detailed analysis of the ACIT vs Himanshu Garg case at ITAT Delhi regarding capital gains, section 54F exemption, and land sale co...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur directs AO to quash Assessment Order under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act as notice to deceased assessee is deemed i...
Income Tax : Section 54F amendment restricting exemption to one residential house was prospective, applying only from April 1, 2015 and Violat...
Income Tax : Discover how the Madras High Court ruled on treating multiple flats as a single residential unit under Section 54F. Detailed analy...
Income Tax : Explore Arun K Thiagarajan Vs CIT, a case on Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed analysis, implications, and the cour...
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...
Assessee submitted the documentary evidence to show that after purchasing the property there was a civil suit filed by the other parties and the assessee could not complete the construction and the licence for constructing the house was accordingly delayed.
In this case assessee sold a property at Rs.20 lakhs against circle rate of 89 lakhs and spent more than a crore in construction of new residential property, exemption u/s 54F was claimed but the AO allowed exemption only with reference to 20 lakhs and balance amount was assessed as capital gain.
Assessee had not invested in Capital Gain Account Scheme before the due date under section 139(1) but complied with the conditions under section 54F(1). The provisions of section 54F are beneficial provisions and are to be considered liberally on the aspect of limitation period. However the investment in residential property is a must which the assessee had complied with evidence.
The facts of the case are that the Assessee, (who died during the pendency of this appeal and is substituted by her legal representatives) was a housewife, having no source of income other than the pension of her deceased husband. The Assessee was the owner of property No. F-23, Hauz Khas, New Delhi wherein she was residing since 1956.
ITAT Chandigarh held In the case of ACIT vs. Ms. Harjinder Dhiman that time limit for deposit in capital gains scheme is to be taken as due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(4). In the instant case, the sale proceeds were deposited in the capital gains scheme on 05.02.2009
CIT Vs. Shri Kapil Kumar Agarwal (P&H High Court) -The issue that arises for consideration relates to whether the assessee in order to avail benefit of Section 54F of the Act is required to utilize the amount for the purchase of the new asset from the sale proceeds of the original capital asset only.
Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Left with the relevant date to decide in the facts of the case, the decision of the Tribunal in Purushottam Govind Bhat’;s case (supra) really comes to favour the assessee. In the said case, the assessee joined the society in 1977. He was allotted a flat and occupied […]
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Seema Singh Beniwal vs. DCIT that there is no restriction that what percentage of the size of flat should be used for residential purposes under the Income Tax Act. It is clarified by the CBDT that purchase of plot of land is a part of residential house for claiming of deduction U/s 54F.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Nirmal Kumar Bardia vs. DCIT that argument of the assessee that the assessee had disclosed salary received from RMC Gems Thai Co. Ltd., Bangkok voluntarily has not substantiated with any evidence.
Karnataka High Court held In the case of The CIT & ITO vs. Smt. B S Shanthakumari that the purpose of provisions u/s 54F is to ensure that assessee who received capital gains would invest the same by constructing a residential house and once it is established that consideration so received on transfer
