Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
