https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62729 The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal upheld the claim for statutory deduction under s. 24(1)(i)(a) of the IT Act for property income, considering the assessee as the owner of the property. However, the addition of Rs. 10,000 as capital gain was upheld based on the Valuation Officer's report. The rejection of the claim for short-term capital loss and determination of capital gain based on the Valuation Officer's estimate was affirmed. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to address the interest under s. 214 of the IT Act on excess advance tax payment, allowing this ground for statistical purposes. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:15:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62729 The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal upheld the claim for statutory deduction under s. 24(1)(i)(a) of the IT Act for property income, considering the assessee as the owner of the property. However, the addition of Rs. 10,000 as capital gain was upheld based on the Valuation Officer's report. The rejection of the claim for short-term capital loss and determination of capital gain based on the Valuation Officer's estimate was affirmed. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to address the interest under s. 214 of the IT Act on excess advance tax payment, allowing this ground for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62729