Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Deduction u/s 54F is not available to an assessee who owns more than one house property at the time of purchasing a new property. The assessee, despite jointly registering the new property with his wife and daughter, made the entire investment himself. Merely registering in joint names with close relatives does not circumvent the restriction u/s 54F. The assessee claimed full deduction for the new property's investment, although jointly owned with his wife. Even for the subsequent sale of the new property, the assessee is likely to argue that Section 54/54F restrictions do not apply due to joint ownership, citing judicial precedents. Accepting this contention would create a loophole for tax evasion. The assessee's argument cannot be accepted if the entire investment is made solely by the assessee. The assessee's farm property at Vishubaug, with a bungalow and residential amenities, was rightly considered a residential house by the authorities. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Deduction u/s 54F is not available to an assessee who owns more than one house property at the time of purchasing a new property. The assessee, despite jointly registering the new property with his wife and daughter, made the entire investment himself. Merely registering in joint names with close relatives does not circumvent the restriction u/s 54F. The assessee claimed full deduction for the new property's investment, although jointly owned with his wife. Even for the subsequent sale of the new property, the assessee is likely to argue that Section 54/54F restrictions do not apply due to joint ownership, citing judicial precedents. Accepting this contention would create a loophole for tax evasion. The assessee's argument cannot be accepted if the entire investment is made solely by the assessee. The assessee's farm property at Vishubaug, with a bungalow and residential amenities, was rightly considered a residential house by the authorities. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
