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 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 
