DCIT Vs Revanth Challagalla (ITAT Hyderabad) Section 54F Allowed Even When Property Purchased in Sister’s Name – Subsequent Gift Validates Claim In this case, the ITAT Hyderabad upheld the allowance of deduction under Section 54F despite the property being initially registered in the name of the assessee’s sister. The assessee, an NRI, had sold villas […]
The tribunal held that systematic sports training and self-defence instruction to students constitute education under Section 2(15). As activities were charitable and genuine, denial of registration under Sections 12AB and 80G was set aside.
The case involved exemption claim on maturity of an assigned Keyman Insurance Policy. The Tribunal held that Explanation 1 to Section 10(10D) includes assigned policies and applies retrospectively. It ruled that such receipts remain taxable despite assignment.
The issue was whether procedural delays and challan errors could deny SVLDR benefits. The Court held that substantive compliance prevails and relief cannot be denied for technical defects.
The case involved non-passing of ITC benefits after GST implementation. The Tribunal held that full ITC gains must be passed on and ordered refund with interest.
The issue included verification of ITC benefit among buyers. The Tribunal relied on DGAP findings and the builder’s acceptance to confirm liability. The ruling underscores the evidentiary role of buyer confirmations.
The case involved denial of remaining depreciation where machinery was used for a short period. The Court held that balance depreciation can be claimed in the subsequent year to ensure parity.
The Tribunal held that change in accounting method causing timing difference cannot lead to double taxation. Since prior period adjustment was allowed and no revenue loss occurred, the addition was deleted.
The tribunal held that the holding period of the previous owner must be included when property is acquired through inheritance or trust devolution. As a result, gains were treated as long-term and exemption under Section 54EC was allowed, while Section 54 was remanded for verification.
The tribunal held that taxing entire gross receipts is unsustainable and only profit embedded in receipts should be taxed. However, the matter was remanded as fresh evidence was admitted without giving the AO an opportunity to verify.
