Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
