Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
ITAT held that indexed cost of improvement for an old developed residential property could not be rejected merely because old bills and vouchers were unavailable. As the registered sale deed and stamp valuation records showed a substantial superstructure, the cost of construction and improvement had to be recomputed on a reasonable basis using the covered area and applicable PWD rates, with consequential indexation. On section 54, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to deduction on the full eligible investment in the new leasehold residential property because the funds were wholly from the assessee and joint naming of the husband did not limit the claim. Optional club membership charges were excluded from eligible cost.
ITAT held that indexed cost of improvement for an old developed residential property could not be rejected merely because old bills and vouchers were unavailable. As the registered sale deed and stamp valuation records showed a substantial superstructure, the cost of construction and improvement had to be recomputed on a reasonable basis using the covered area and applicable PWD rates, with consequential indexation. On section 54, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to deduction on the full eligible investment in the new leasehold residential property because the funds were wholly from the assessee and joint naming of the husband did not limit the claim. Optional club membership charges were excluded from eligible cost.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.