Rajesh Parasram Nichani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Case ke facts
Rajesh Parasram Nichani ne ek property bechi thi. Unhone Section 54 ka benefit claim kiya, lekin poori investment nahi dikhayi. Department ne Rs. 5,25,923 ka penalty lagaya.
Mudda (Issue)
Kya Section 54 ke shortfall par penalty lag sakti hai agar wo asal saal mein taxable hi nahi tha?
Faisla (Held)
ITAT Mumbai ne penalty hata di. Court bola ki jo shortfall tha, wo us assessment year mein taxable hi nahi tha, isliye penalty bhi nahi lagni chahiye thi.
Practical takeaway
Agar Section 54 investment ka kuch part baad mein cover ho gaya, toh pehle year mein us par penalty nahi lagani chahiye. Penalty notice aaye toh actual taxable year check karo.
Original report: TaxGuru
Aapke case mein bhi aisa hi mudda hai?
CGA ki team notice, appeal aur department proceedings mein kaam karti hai. Documents ke saath baat kariye.
WhatsApp par poochiyeIncome tax notice ka jawabAur Income Tax faisle
- Azure Power Uranus Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)ITAT Delhi · Section 263, Section 270A
- Bestone Industries Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)ITAT Delhi
- Kalpana Misra Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)ITAT Delhi
- Param Dairy Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)ITAT Delhi · Section 271AAB
- Sh. Jagjeet Singh Vs DCIT ACIT (ITAT Amritsar)ITAT Amritsar · Section 263
- Veena Chadha Vs Assessing Officer (ITAT Delhi)ITAT Delhi · Section 54
Yeh summary public report par aadhaarit general jaankari hai, legal advice nahi. Poora faisla padhne ke liye original source dekhiye. Published on cgaindia.com: 2026-09-07.