Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
