Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
