Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
The ITAT Chennai ruled on LTCG deduction u/s 54, stating that investment in more than one property is not allowed. Assessee invested in two distinct properties in spouse's name, disallowing deduction. Further investment claimed for LTCG was disallowed as AO did not consider additional payment for property improvement. Assessee provided evidence of payment to builder, but AO did not have these documents. The case is remanded to AO to allow assessee to substantiate the claim. The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT Chennai ruled on LTCG deduction u/s 54, stating that investment in more than one property is not allowed. Assessee invested in two distinct properties in spouse's name, disallowing deduction. Further investment claimed for LTCG was disallowed as AO did not consider additional payment for property improvement. Assessee provided evidence of payment to builder, but AO did not have these documents. The case is remanded to AO to allow assessee to substantiate the claim. The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
