Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Section 54 exemption cannot be denied merely because capital gains were not deposited in the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme before the due date under section 139(1), where the assessee had already purchased a new residential house within the prescribed two-year period. The ITAT treated the deposit requirement as a procedural condition regulating interim use of unutilised capital gains, not a substantive bar capable of defeating timely reinvestment. Since the decisive fact was actual investment in the new house within the statutory period, the hyper-technical denial of exemption was unsustainable. The disallowance was deleted and the exemption was held admissible.
Section 54 exemption cannot be denied merely because capital gains were not deposited in the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme before the due date under section 139(1), where the assessee had already purchased a new residential house within the prescribed two-year period. The ITAT treated the deposit requirement as a procedural condition regulating interim use of unutilised capital gains, not a substantive bar capable of defeating timely reinvestment. Since the decisive fact was actual investment in the new house within the statutory period, the hyper-technical denial of exemption was unsustainable. The disallowance was deleted and the exemption was held admissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
