Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 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 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
