Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
