https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778206 ITAT held the actual amount realized on sale of litigated land is the sale consideration. Claimed cost of improvements (Rs.7,50,000) disallowed for lack of evidence. Litigation expenses were acknowledged but, absent proof, Rs.50,000 was allowed. Question of exemption under s.54F for amounts deposited in CGAS after the s.139(1) due date was remitted to the AO to verify whether subsequent investments were made within s.54F time limits; AO to allow s.54F if conditions satisfied. AO also to verify whether the assessee owned more than one residential house on transfer date. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Sep 2025 11:15:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778206 ITAT held the actual amount realized on sale of litigated land is the sale consideration. Claimed cost of improvements (Rs.7,50,000) disallowed for lack of evidence. Litigation expenses were acknowledged but, absent proof, Rs.50,000 was allowed. Question of exemption under s.54F for amounts deposited in CGAS after the s.139(1) due date was remitted to the AO to verify whether subsequent investments were made within s.54F time limits; AO to allow s.54F if conditions satisfied. AO also to verify whether the assessee owned more than one residential house on transfer date. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778206