Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The appellant did not acquire a new residential property within the specified time period, failing the mandatory condition for deduction u/s 54. The CIT(A)-NFAC incorrectly invoked the "one year before the transfer" limb, concluding that the assessee is ineligible for deduction. However, the relevant date for computing the limitation u/s 54 in all three eventualities is the payment of consideration and possession of the new property. Judicial precedents support this interpretation. The assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 54.
The appellant did not acquire a new residential property within the specified time period, failing the mandatory condition for deduction u/s 54. The CIT(A)-NFAC incorrectly invoked the "one year before the transfer" limb, concluding that the assessee is ineligible for deduction. However, the relevant date for computing the limitation u/s 54 in all three eventualities is the payment of consideration and possession of the new property. Judicial precedents support this interpretation. The assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 54.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
