Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT allowed appellant's claim for deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, holding that filing the claim in the original or revised return is not mandatory for availing such deduction. The tribunal found that appellant purchased Delhi property for Rs.22,30,000 one year prior to selling Lucknow property, generating long-term capital gains of Rs.17,13,015. Since the purchase cost exceeded the capital gains amount, full deduction was permissible under sections 45(1) and 54(1)(ii). The addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) was deleted. Regarding addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) for difference between stamp value and sale consideration, ITAT granted relief of Rs.86,66,666 but made it subject to pending High Court proceedings regarding validity of the 2005 agreement to sell the Delhi property.
ITAT allowed appellant's claim for deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, holding that filing the claim in the original or revised return is not mandatory for availing such deduction. The tribunal found that appellant purchased Delhi property for Rs.22,30,000 one year prior to selling Lucknow property, generating long-term capital gains of Rs.17,13,015. Since the purchase cost exceeded the capital gains amount, full deduction was permissible under sections 45(1) and 54(1)(ii). The addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) was deleted. Regarding addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) for difference between stamp value and sale consideration, ITAT granted relief of Rs.86,66,666 but made it subject to pending High Court proceedings regarding validity of the 2005 agreement to sell the Delhi property.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.