9911796707
Advanced Search 
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 1 to 20 of 461 Records Search Text: 54f wife |
| Search Results |
| Acts / Rules (1) Articles (3) Case-Laws (431) Circulars (2) Forum (3) Highlights (18) News (2) Notifications (1) |
|
Disallowance of deduction U/s 54F - the wife of the assessee could have included the value of construction for mortgage purposes and this alone does not mean that construction was carried out by the wife of the assessee out of her own funds so as to deny the assessee the benefit of deduction - AT
Claim of exemption u/s 54F – amount advanced to his wife towards purchase of the property - assessee has 50% ownership over the property - exemption allowed - AT
Section 54F Exemption Valid: Wife's Name Added for Convenience; Payment Made by Assessee's Account. Deduction u/s 54F -Since, name of the wife has been added only for the sake of convenience and total consideration has been met from the account of the assessee. - the exemption cannot be denied. - AT
2019 (7) TMI 436 - ITAT DELHI The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify the utilization of sale proceeds for the property purchase in the wife's name. The decision emphasized the importance of considering claims not originally made in the return and upheld the assessee's right to deduction under section 54F based on the source of funds used for the purchase.
2014 (7) TMI 130 - ITAT HYDERABAD The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the department's appeal and upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) order allowing the deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT found the assessee's investment in the property valid, emphasizing the need for verification of advance payment by the Assessing Officer. The ITAT also rejected the department's argument regarding Rule 46A, stating that the CIT (A) had the authority to consider necessary material without involving the AO. The judgment was delivered on June 13, 2014.
2019 (2) TMI 2003 - ITAT CHENNAI The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the lower authorities' decisions were upheld for all issues raised in the case. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the appellant's claims regarding cash deposits and denied exemption under Section 54F of the Act due to the appellant's wife already claiming exemption for the same property. The lack of evidence supporting transactions and failure to establish creditworthiness and genuineness of parties led to the affirmation of the lower authority's decisions.
2014 (6) TMI 1084 - ITAT CHENNAI The ITAT partly allowed the appeals, granting exemption under section 54F to the assessees, affirming that joint ownership does not disqualify eligibility. It upheld the dismissal of the appeal regarding the treatment of income from the sale of trees and the addition of admitted income. The Tribunal found the classification of agricultural income as reasonable and deleted the related addition. The levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was deemed consequential and dismissed as a ground of appeal.
2012 (6) TMI 230 - ITAT DELHI The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 54F for the entire amount invested in the new residential house, despite it being purchased jointly with his wife. The Tribunal found that the wife had no financial contribution and the property was essentially held in trust for the assessee. The AO's decision to restrict the exemption to 50% was overturned, and the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the full exemption for the investment made by the assessee.
2020 (11) TMI 312 - ITAT INDORE The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the exemption under Section 54F for the entire Long Term Capital Gain of ?1,06,95,941/-, thereby deleting the disallowance of ?75,83,229/-. The decision emphasized the importance of substantive compliance over procedural lapses in beneficial provisions like Section 54F.
2022 (5) TMI 609 - ITAT JAIPUR The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting exemption under Section 54F and setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal held that the exemption should not be denied merely because the new residential house was purchased in the wife's name, especially when the investment was made from the assessee's own funds. The broader interpretation of the term "assessee" aligned with the legislative intent to provide tax relief for reinvestment in residential properties, regardless of the property's registered name. The addition of Rs. 6,33,190/- on account of long-term capital gain was deleted.
2020 (8) TMI 722 - ITAT BANGALORE The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, determining that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 54F for the residential property at 183, Binanmangala, 2nd Stage, Bangalore. The Tribunal found that the second property was solely owned by the assessee's wife and did not trigger the proviso (ii) to section 54F, as the funds for the purchase came from her.
2017 (8) TMI 1254 - ITAT DELHI The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the denial of exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act due to the new property being purchased in the wife's name with a loan not traceable to sale proceeds. The issue of additional investment and cash consideration received was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further review, emphasizing the requirement for evidence of loan repayment and use of sale proceeds for the new property investment.
2024 (6) TMI 62 - ITAT INDORE The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, granting the deduction u/s 54B for agricultural lands purchased in the names of his wife and minor children. It emphasized that Section 54B does not mandate the land to be in the assessee's name if the funds originate from the assessee. The Tribunal cited judicial precedents and statutory recognition under the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, affirming the assessee's right to the deduction. The Tribunal underscored the role of the assessee as a natural/legal guardian for minors and the purposive interpretation of Section 54B, supporting the assessee's entitlement to the deduction for the entire investment.
2022 (1) TMI 601 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT The High Court partially allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee on substantial questions of law 2 to 4, granting exemption under Section 54F. The court held that the assessee was eligible for the exemption as he did not own more than one residential house on the date of transfer. The Assessing Officer was instructed to recalculate the income considering the exemption under Section 54F.
2024 (12) TMI 901 - ITAT CHENNAI The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the AO to grant the deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2012-13. It concluded that the deduction is permissible even if the residential property is purchased in the spouse's name, aligning with the prevailing judicial interpretation and precedent from the Hon'ble Delhi HC.
2022 (8) TMI 445 - ITAT RANCHI The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, granting deductions under section 54F for flats purchased in the names of the appellant's wife and son. The tribunal directed further examination of the claimed expenditure for improvement on the new flats. The issue of interest under section 234A/234B was not extensively discussed, and the general fourth issue was left for future arguments.
2018 (11) TMI 1123 - ITAT HYDERABAD The ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, granting exemption under Section 54F despite the property being in the spouse's name. The judgment emphasized promoting residential property investments and broadly interpreted the term "assessee" to uphold the exemption's purpose.
2017 (12) TMI 1769 - ITAT JAIPUR The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction under section 54F for the residential property purchased in the name of the assessee's wife. The court emphasized that the legislation does not specify the investment should be in the assessee's name, supporting deductions for investments made in the spouse's name. Additionally, the court verified the ownership of residential houses, accepting the affidavit provided by the assessee as evidence of single ownership, meeting the deduction condition. The appellate tribunal granted the deduction based on legal interpretations and evidence presented.
2024 (9) TMI 727 - ITAT DELHI The Tribunal condoned a 250-day delay in filing the appeal, concluding it was neither intentional nor deliberate. It recognized the jewelry sale as long-term capital gain (LTCG) and allowed the corresponding deduction under Section 54. Additionally, the Tribunal granted the Section 54 exemption for a new residential house purchased in the assessee's wife's name, deleting the Revenue's additions. The appeal was allowed in full.
2021 (9) TMI 505 - ITAT CHENNAI The Tribunal held that the Assessee's transfer of property shares to his wife was a genuine family arrangement, not a tax avoidance scheme. Thus, the Assessee was deemed eligible for exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal overturned the lower authorities' decisions, directing the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption claimed by the Assessee. The appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal's decision issued on 8th September 2021 in Chennai.
|
