Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
