https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463128 Limited scrutiny confined to capital-gains issues did not lose jurisdiction merely because the assessee claimed an expansion into complete scrutiny; the addition remained within the selected scrutiny reason, so the challenge failed. In a joint development arrangement, capital gains were held taxable in the year when the arrangement was completed and the constructed flats were actually received, not merely in the year of execution of the agreement, so tax in the relevant year was sustained. Section 54F relief was restricted to one qualifying residential unit because the flats received were separate independent units, and further exemption was not allowed. en-us Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2025 20:34:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463128 Limited scrutiny confined to capital-gains issues did not lose jurisdiction merely because the assessee claimed an expansion into complete scrutiny; the addition remained within the selected scrutiny reason, so the challenge failed. In a joint development arrangement, capital gains were held taxable in the year when the arrangement was completed and the constructed flats were actually received, not merely in the year of execution of the agreement, so tax in the relevant year was sustained. Section 54F relief was restricted to one qualifying residential unit because the flats received were separate independent units, and further exemption was not allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463128