https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435525 Section 54F relief was upheld where the appellate authority allowed the exemption on principle and merely directed verification of supporting documents; that limited verification was not an impermissible setting aside under section 251(1)(a). The claim also depended on the characterisation of the Padikuppam acquisition as land rather than a residential house for the restrictive condition in section 54F. The trading loss on futures and options was remanded because demat and banking evidence were not produced, and the addition under section 69 relating to said to have been received from Shri K. Kesavan was also remanded for fresh examination due to an incomplete factual record. en-us Fri, 17 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 May 2023 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435525 Section 54F relief was upheld where the appellate authority allowed the exemption on principle and merely directed verification of supporting documents; that limited verification was not an impermissible setting aside under section 251(1)(a). The claim also depended on the characterisation of the Padikuppam acquisition as land rather than a residential house for the restrictive condition in section 54F. The trading loss on futures and options was remanded because demat and banking evidence were not produced, and the addition under section 69 relating to said to have been received from Shri K. Kesavan was also remanded for fresh examination due to an incomplete factual record. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435525