Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 
