https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356671 The appellant's grounds of appeal were found not in consonance with Rule 8 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The Tribunal rejected the ground regarding the re-opening of assessment as it was not pressed by the appellant's counsel. Regarding the restriction of deduction under section 54F, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant that the cost of the new asset should be considered as Rs. 70 lakhs instead of Rs. 30 lakhs, resulting in no capital gain tax liability for the appellant. The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, directing the AO to recalculate the capital gain based on the revised cost of the new asset. en-us Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Mar 2018 06:57:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356671 The appellant's grounds of appeal were found not in consonance with Rule 8 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The Tribunal rejected the ground regarding the re-opening of assessment as it was not pressed by the appellant's counsel. Regarding the restriction of deduction under section 54F, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant that the cost of the new asset should be considered as Rs. 70 lakhs instead of Rs. 30 lakhs, resulting in no capital gain tax liability for the appellant. The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, directing the AO to recalculate the capital gain based on the revised cost of the new asset. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356671