https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203176 The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection for statistical purposes. The issues regarding the adoption of land valuation for capital gain computation and deduction under Section 54 were remanded to the AO for re-examination. The Tribunal allowed deduction under Section 54 for only one flat, as per the assessee's choice. The addition of compensation in the hands of HUF instead of individuals was upheld. The challenge against the levy of interest under Section 234C was rejected due to the issue not being raised before the CIT(A). en-us Mon, 20 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203176 The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection for statistical purposes. The issues regarding the adoption of land valuation for capital gain computation and deduction under Section 54 were remanded to the AO for re-examination. The Tribunal allowed deduction under Section 54 for only one flat, as per the assessee's choice. The addition of compensation in the hands of HUF instead of individuals was upheld. The challenge against the levy of interest under Section 234C was rejected due to the issue not being raised before the CIT(A). Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 20 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203176