<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Composite residential flat exemption upheld where supplementary agreement merged adjoining units and additional evidence supported the taxpayer&#039;s investment claim.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103041</link>
    <description>Admission of crucial additional evidence supporting capital-gains exemptions was valid because the Commissioner (Appeals) obtained a remand report and found the supplementary agreement necessary for substantial justice. The agreement amalgamated two adjoining flats into one composite residential unit with a single surviving flat number. The taxpayer&#039;s investment and stipulated share in that composite unit supported exemptions under sections 54 and 54F, as the Assessing Officer had not verified facts sufficient to displace that position. The disallowance was deleted and the revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 08:34:03 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 08:34:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=918799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Composite residential flat exemption upheld where supplementary agreement merged adjoining units and additional evidence supported the taxpayer&#039;s investment claim.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103041</link>
      <description>Admission of crucial additional evidence supporting capital-gains exemptions was valid because the Commissioner (Appeals) obtained a remand report and found the supplementary agreement necessary for substantial justice. The agreement amalgamated two adjoining flats into one composite residential unit with a single surviving flat number. The taxpayer&#039;s investment and stipulated share in that composite unit supported exemptions under sections 54 and 54F, as the Assessing Officer had not verified facts sufficient to displace that position. The disallowance was deleted and the revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 08:34:03 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>