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 issue was whether receipt of shares on amalgamation attracts tax when shares are held as stock-in-trade. The Court held such substitution can trigger business income under Section 28 if the shares are realisable, reinforcing the real income principle.
The issue was whether a second reassessment could be initiated on the same facts already examined earlier. The Tribunal held that reopening based on a mere change of opinion is invalid and quashed the reassessment.
The AO denied exemption relying on an inspector’s report citing minimal construction. The Tribunal held that documentary evidence showed a habitable residence, entitling exemption.
Madras High Court held that JDA executed in 1994, however, sale/ transfer of capital asset was taken place only in March 1999 when the sale deed was executed. Accordingly, capital gain was rightly offered for AYs 1999-2000 and hence exemption u/s. 54 rightly claimed.
ITAT remanded a ₹2.90 crore s.54F deduction case, allowing the assessee to furnish complete documentation and have the claim re-examined on merit.
Hyderabad ITAT held that even a delayed return filed during assessment is valid, and absence of mandatory Section 143(2) notice renders the entire assessment void.
The Tribunal held that section 54F does not require submission of a completion certificate. The key takeaway is that actual investment and timely construction, supported by evidence, are decisive.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty could be levied for claiming excess deduction under sections 54F and 54B. It held that an inadvertent and promptly corrected mistake does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that incomplete villas incapable of occupation and held as business assets do not amount to residential houses. Deduction under section 54F cannot be denied merely due to their existence.
ITAT confirmed that ownership of additional properties under construction does not block Section 54F deduction if they are business assets. Deduction on LTCG invested in residential property was upheld.
