Mukesh Arvindlal Vakharia Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) ITAT Allows Full 54EC Relief Because Investments Were in Two Financial Years; 54EC Deduction Restored as Advance Money Investment Considered Valid; 54F Claim Denied Because Joint Ownership Counts as Second House; Section 54F Exemption Refused Due to Ownership of Multiple Residences; Expense Deduction Rejected Since Firm Interest Cannot […]
The Tribunal held that joint ownership of multiple residences does not disqualify a taxpayer from Section 54F benefits. It upheld the CIT(A)’s decision allowing the deduction and rejected the Revenue’s reliance on contrary precedent.
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.
The Tribunal held that the assessee established a prima facie case regarding deduction eligibility for habitable-unit expenditure.
he Court held that the penalty for an unfilled Part-B of the e-way bill could not stand as the authority recorded no attempt to evade tax. The ruling reinforces that Section 129 requires a specific finding of evasion.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of ₹5.85 crore addition under Section 40A(3), confirming that payments to meat producers under Rule 6DD(e)(ii) are exempt.
Reopening Based on Incorrect LTCG Information Invalid; Long-Held Penny-Stock Shares Treated as Genuine — ITAT Mumbai Quashes Additions
The Court reviewed bogus purchases of Rs. 4.65 crore, confirming the purchases as unverifiable but reduced the income estimation from 12.5% to 8%. The appeal was partly allowed, providing relief to the assessee.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that income already taxed under a proprietorship cannot be taxed again in a partnership, deleting the estimated 2% addition by CIT(A).
ITAT Delhi upheld that failure to pass a speaking order on objections under GKN Driveshafts makes reassessment void, dismissing Revenue’s appeal for AY 2012-13
