Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
