Charitable registration renewal cannot become an assessment of receipts, profitability or annual exemption compliance, requiring renewal and donation ...
AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Section 54 relief was available where the assessee invested capital gains in an under-construction residential flat within the prescribed period. The ITAT held that booking a flat with a builder, supported by allotment letters and proof of payment, amounts to investment in construction of a residential house. Completion of construction, registration, or handing over of possession within the statutory period was not indispensable on these facts, especially where the delay was attributable to the developer and the assessee had made substantial payment within time. The Revenue's challenge failed, and the deduction under section 54 was upheld.
Section 54 relief was available where the assessee invested capital gains in an under-construction residential flat within the prescribed period. The ITAT held that booking a flat with a builder, supported by allotment letters and proof of payment, amounts to investment in construction of a residential house. Completion of construction, registration, or handing over of possession within the statutory period was not indispensable on these facts, especially where the delay was attributable to the developer and the assessee had made substantial payment within time. The Revenue's challenge failed, and the deduction under section 54 was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.