Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
Unsubstantiated exempt agricultural income claim sustains concealment penalty after disclosure only on departmental detection and no bona fide evidenc...
ITAT held that for deduction under section 54F, the decisive question was whether the disputed property could legally be treated as a residential house on the relevant date. On the basis of the registered purchase deed, later sale deed and the purchaser's notarised affidavit, the property was found to be open land fit for inhabitation, not a residential premises. Its appearance in the balance sheet at a stated value did not prove residential character. As the assessee was therefore not shown to own more than one residential house, the statutory condition for denial of deduction was not met and the deduction was rightly allowed.
ITAT held that for deduction under section 54F, the decisive question was whether the disputed property could legally be treated as a residential house on the relevant date. On the basis of the registered purchase deed, later sale deed and the purchaser's notarised affidavit, the property was found to be open land fit for inhabitation, not a residential premises. Its appearance in the balance sheet at a stated value did not prove residential character. As the assessee was therefore not shown to own more than one residential house, the statutory condition for denial of deduction was not met and the deduction was rightly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
