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 held that a registered JV agreement with possession in 2011 constituted transfer under section 2(47). Capital gains could not be taxed in AY 2017-18 and had to be aligned to the correct year.
It was ruled that the bar on fresh claims applies only to assessing officers, not appellate bodies. A valid Section 54F claim must be examined on merits during appeal.
The issue was whether sale involved only land or land with a residential house. The Tribunal ruled that the property sold included a residential structure, entitling the assessee to Section 54 exemption upon deposit in the capital gains scheme.
The Tribunal ruled that denial of Section 54F relief without proper verification was premature. The Assessing Officer must re-examine ownership and payment evidence before deciding the claim.
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
