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...
Jaipur Tribunal observed that the son had no independent income, and the purchase was made solely from the assessee’s funds. Consequently, restriction of exemption to 50% by the CIT(A) was set aside, confirming full Section 54F relief.
The Tribunal set aside the prior order as the deceased assessee could not represent himself and legal heirs were not on record. CIT(A) is directed to consider all issues afresh, including denial of indexed cost and 54F exemption.
The ITAT Jaipur held that joint ownership of a new property does not bar full exemption under Section 54F if the assessee funds the purchase and retains control over the asset.
The Tribunal ruled that partial disallowance of section 54F deduction, without concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Tribunal ruled Section 54F exemption is not available when the assessee owns multiple independent residential units, each with a separate kitchen. Deduction on the JDA property was disallowed.
ITAT ruled that reopening assessment under Section 147 is invalid if the filed return is ignored. The case was remitted for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee to substantiate claims under Section 54F.
The ITAT ruled that property sold by a discontinued partnership must be taxed in the firm’s hands, not its former partners, emphasizing correct ownership for capital gains assessment.
The tax authority’s assessment and penalty were set aside as the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to submit documents or Rule 46A application. The court emphasized adherence to natural justice before rejecting section 54F claims.
The Tribunal held that section 54 relief cannot be denied merely because the new property was purchased in the spouse’s name. It ruled that actual investment of capital gains is the key requirement.
ITAT Chennai quashed reassessment under Section 147, ruling that reopening based on a change of opinion without new material is invalid.
