https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338160 The Tribunal allowed both appeals, quashing the CIT's order under Section 263 and directing deletion of additions towards capital gains and cost of construction. It upheld eligibility for exemption under Section 54F, emphasizing substantive compliance over technicalities. The Tribunal found the assessment order was not erroneous, as the AO had examined the exemption issue. Additionally, it ruled that the property purchase in the son's name did not disqualify the assessee from exemption. The Tribunal also held that the computation of capital gains using Section 50C was incorrect and that the addition under Section 69 was unjustified due to the investment being made by the father. en-us Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jan 2017 08:58:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338160 The Tribunal allowed both appeals, quashing the CIT's order under Section 263 and directing deletion of additions towards capital gains and cost of construction. It upheld eligibility for exemption under Section 54F, emphasizing substantive compliance over technicalities. The Tribunal found the assessment order was not erroneous, as the AO had examined the exemption issue. Additionally, it ruled that the property purchase in the son's name did not disqualify the assessee from exemption. The Tribunal also held that the computation of capital gains using Section 50C was incorrect and that the addition under Section 69 was unjustified due to the investment being made by the father. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338160