Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
