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...
Tribunal held that Section 54F allows exemption only for one residential unit. The assessee’s claim for a second flat was rejected, affirming that multiple units do not qualify unless treated as a single house.
Revenue’s claim of short-term gains was rejected; ITAT held that shares received as a gift inherit the donor’s acquisition date and holding period, validating LTCG and section 54F exemption.
Tribunal upheld disallowance of Section 54F exemption after the assessee failed to prove ownership of the residential property. The ruling confirms that deduction requires clear evidence of title.
The Tribunal held that fractional or joint ownership in residential property does not violate the Section 54F condition unless the assessee is the exclusive owner. Deduction was allowed because co-ownership cannot trigger the proviso.
Tribunal found the appellate order non-speaking, failing to consider multiple submissions including 54F claims and compensation deductions. The matter is remanded for comprehensive review and proper opportunity of hearing.
Tribunal upheld capital gains exemptions after finding that assessee had furnished proof of investments under sections 54F and 54EC. The ruling confirms that omission to consider evidence cannot justify denial of statutory relief.
ITAT Ahmedabad deleted long-term capital gain addition where assessee incurred significant maintenance and development costs. Key takeaway: factual context and proportional treatment of joint ownership costs are critical.
The Tribunal ruled that a Section 148 notice issued after six years from AY 2013–14 was invalid, quashing the reassessment and additions under Section 54F.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed since AO took one of the possible views while allowing claim of deduction under section 54F. Accordingly, order is quashed and appeal is allowed.
Learn about capital gains tax exemptions under Sections 54 to 54GB of the Income Tax Act, conditions for eligibility, and withdrawal of exemptions.
