Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
