Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 96176 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 54F relief was available where the assessee booked an under-construction flat, paid substantially the entire consideration within the statutory period, and obtained registration later. The Tribunal treated the transaction as falling within the construction limb of Section 54F, so the three-year period applied and delayed execution of the sale deed did not defeat the claim. It further held that, even on a purchase analysis, the critical factor was acquisition of substantial domain over the property through timely substantial payment, not the date of registration alone. On these facts, the deduction was allowed and the denial by the lower authorities was reversed.
Section 54F relief was available where the assessee booked an under-construction flat, paid substantially the entire consideration within the statutory period, and obtained registration later. The Tribunal treated the transaction as falling within the construction limb of Section 54F, so the three-year period applied and delayed execution of the sale deed did not defeat the claim. It further held that, even on a purchase analysis, the critical factor was acquisition of substantial domain over the property through timely substantial payment, not the date of registration alone. On these facts, the deduction was allowed and the denial by the lower authorities was reversed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.