Judicial discipline requires consistent reassessment treatment where identical facts were decided for the same taxpayer in the preceding assessment ye...
Agreement-date stamp valuation requires the same registered property, fixed consideration, and qualifying payment; an unrelated prior booking cannot a...
Page of 4894
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 97867 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Surat held that the assessee failed to fulfill conditions for LTCG deduction u/s 54F but allowed the deduction. The assessee used advance payments for construction of a new house. The ITAT cited M. George Jeoseph case to support the claim. Payments made to parties before and after filing return were justified. The ITAT referred to the ITO Vs. Rekha Shetty case to emphasize compliance with the main requirement of section 54. The CIT(A) approved deduction, noting genuine expenses for house construction. All payments to parties were supported by evidence. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The ITAT Surat held that the assessee failed to fulfill conditions for LTCG deduction u/s 54F but allowed the deduction. The assessee used advance payments for construction of a new house. The ITAT cited M. George Jeoseph case to support the claim. Payments made to parties before and after filing return were justified. The ITAT referred to the ITO Vs. Rekha Shetty case to emphasize compliance with the main requirement of section 54. The CIT(A) approved deduction, noting genuine expenses for house construction. All payments to parties were supported by evidence. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
