Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Market value for captive electricity consumption follows industrial consumer tariffs, supporting profit computation for the power generation deduction...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
