https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779009 ITAT DELHI - AT allowed the appeal, holding the AO exceeded the mandate of a limited scrutiny by making additions without converting it into a complete scrutiny, thus violating jurisdiction; the additional ground raised by the assessee was accepted. On s.54F, relying on HC precedent, the tribunal found the assessee had deposited and utilized the entire capital gains amount within the three-year statutory period for construction, and delay in obtaining approvals/completing construction beyond three years did not disentitle the assessee from exemption. Accordingly, exemption under s.54F was granted. en-us Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2025 12:06:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779009 ITAT DELHI - AT allowed the appeal, holding the AO exceeded the mandate of a limited scrutiny by making additions without converting it into a complete scrutiny, thus violating jurisdiction; the additional ground raised by the assessee was accepted. On s.54F, relying on HC precedent, the tribunal found the assessee had deposited and utilized the entire capital gains amount within the three-year statutory period for construction, and delay in obtaining approvals/completing construction beyond three years did not disentitle the assessee from exemption. Accordingly, exemption under s.54F was granted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779009