PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving a claim for deduction u/s 54 for LTCG. The claim was initially denied as the new asset was not purchased or constructed within the specified time frames u/s 54. The assessee argued that although the asset was booked earlier, possession was received within the prescribed period. Citing a Bombay High Court case, it was held that the date of possession should be considered the date of actual purchase for claiming exemption u/s 54F. Referring to a similar case, it was reiterated that possession date is crucial. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the exemption as possession was obtained within the required timeframe from the agreement to sell the original asset.
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving a claim for deduction u/s 54 for LTCG. The claim was initially denied as the new asset was not purchased or constructed within the specified time frames u/s 54. The assessee argued that although the asset was booked earlier, possession was received within the prescribed period. Citing a Bombay High Court case, it was held that the date of possession should be considered the date of actual purchase for claiming exemption u/s 54F. Referring to a similar case, it was reiterated that possession date is crucial. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the exemption as possession was obtained within the required timeframe from the agreement to sell the original asset.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
