Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored the Section 54F claim after noting that medical issues and portal difficulties prevented timely filing of ...
Income Tax : The new law treats gains from depreciable assets as short-term capital gains for all purposes, not merely for computation. This ef...
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 : 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 ITAT Dehradun held that exemption under Section 54B cannot be denied merely for non-deposit in the Capital Gains Account Schem...
Income Tax : ITAT Indore held that exemption under Section 54B cannot be denied when investment in new agricultural land was made within the pr...
Income Tax : Mumbai ITAT held that Section 56(2)(x) applies to purchase of MHADA leasehold property rights despite reliance on Section 50C ruli...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that before the amendment effective from 01.04.2015, exemption under Section 54 could be claimed for investment in...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that the word purchase under Section 54 must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation. Genuine investment...
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...
Shri M.V.Subramanyeswara Reddy (HUF) Vs DCIT ITAT Hyderabad Mere non residential use subsequently would not render the property ineligible for benefit u/s.54F, if it is otherwise a residential property, as held by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs JCIT (5 SOT 353).
CIT Vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora (Delhi HC)- Section 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Here is a case where the house was purchased by the assessee and that too in his name and wife‟s name was also included additionally. Such inclusion of the name of the wife for the above-stated peculiar factual reason should not stand in the way of the deduction legitimately accruing to the assessee.
Sita Jain & Ors. v. ACIT & Anr. (ITAT Delhi) – We have duly considered the rival contention and gone through the record carefully. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the subsequent decision has upheld grant of exemption u/s 54B in a case where land was purchased in the joint name. The ITAT had discussed this issue in the case of Smt. Saraswati Swaminathan reported in 116 ITD 234 and has observed that the object of section 54EC is to utilize the sale proceed of long term capital gain in the purchase of specified bonds.
There is no rider u/s 54F that no deduction would be allowed in respect of investment of capital gains made on acquisition of land appurtenant to the building or on the investment on land on which building is being constructed.
In this case the assessee was denied exemption on the investments made with Delhi Development Authority. However, relief was granted by the Hon’ble High Court. It was held that section 54 of the Act of 1961 only says that within two years, the assessee should have constructed the house
Satish Chandra Gupta Vs Assessing Officer (ITAT Delhi): Relief granted for delayed house construction under Section 54 due to reasons beyond the assessee’s control.
