https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776439 The ITAT Delhi upheld the CIT(A)'s findings dismissing the Revenue's grounds regarding long-term capital gains computation, confirming that capital gains are determined based on sale consideration in the sale deed without imputing notional income. The addition under section 56(2)(vii)(c) related to bonus shares from HPCL and GAIL was also dismissed, following precedents that bonus shares do not attract this provision. Regarding deduction under section 54F, the tribunal held that the assessee was the absolute owner of only one property at the time of transfer and thus eligible for the deduction, rejecting the AO's denial based on ownership of more than two flats. The appeal was allowed on this ground, affirming that mere rights or partial ownership do not constitute absolute ownership for denying section 54F benefits. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Aug 2025 08:43:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776439 The ITAT Delhi upheld the CIT(A)'s findings dismissing the Revenue's grounds regarding long-term capital gains computation, confirming that capital gains are determined based on sale consideration in the sale deed without imputing notional income. The addition under section 56(2)(vii)(c) related to bonus shares from HPCL and GAIL was also dismissed, following precedents that bonus shares do not attract this provision. Regarding deduction under section 54F, the tribunal held that the assessee was the absolute owner of only one property at the time of transfer and thus eligible for the deduction, rejecting the AO's denial based on ownership of more than two flats. The appeal was allowed on this ground, affirming that mere rights or partial ownership do not constitute absolute ownership for denying section 54F benefits. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776439