Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Section 54F relief was held available where sale consideration was invested in a residential house before filing the return under section 139(4), so deposit in the capital gains account was not required. The Tribunal also held that an undivided one-third share in a single contiguous residential property did not amount to ownership of two separate houses, so the assessee was not disentitled on that ground. It further ruled that section 54F must be applied asset-wise: shares of each company were separate capital assets, and long-term capital loss could not be used to deny exemption on gains from other assets.
Section 54F relief was held available where sale consideration was invested in a residential house before filing the return under section 139(4), so deposit in the capital gains account was not required. The Tribunal also held that an undivided one-third share in a single contiguous residential property did not amount to ownership of two separate houses, so the assessee was not disentitled on that ground. It further ruled that section 54F must be applied asset-wise: shares of each company were separate capital assets, and long-term capital loss could not be used to deny exemption on gains from other assets.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.