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...
ITAT observed that Assessing Officer had treated jewellery sale proceeds as unexplained mainly because no wealth tax returns were filed. Tribunal restored the matter for fresh examination in light of supporting vouchers and legal precedents.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that a demolished and uninhabitable structure could not be treated as a residential house for Section 54F purposes. The Tribunal upheld the assessee’s eligibility for capital gains exemption.
ITAT Bangalore restored the Section 54F claim after noting that medical issues and portal difficulties prevented timely filing of evidence. The AO was directed to re-examine all supporting documents before passing any adverse order.
The new law treats gains from depreciable assets as short-term capital gains for all purposes, not merely for computation. This effectively removes exemption benefits previously allowed through judicial interpretation under the old regime.
The Tribunal held that for under-construction properties, the date of possession is the relevant factor for Section 54 exemption. It rejected the reliance on registration date alone. The ruling clarifies timing criteria for capital gains exemption.
The Tribunal held that absence of a clear charge in the penalty notice makes the proceedings invalid. It ruled that failure to specify the exact limb of misreporting renders the penalty unsustainable.
The issue was denial of capital gains exemption due to claim under wrong section. The tribunal held that a genuine claim cannot be rejected merely for citing an incorrect provision and remanded the case.
The Court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny assessment. It ruled that reopening based on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is invalid.
ITAT Chennai set aside the appellate order and remanded issues on protective addition, Section 54F exemption, and TDS credit mismatch for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that deposit in the capital gains scheme is not required if the entire amount is invested before filing the return. The claim was allowed subject to verification.
