Condonation of Delay: Tribunal directed condonation where rectification proceedings were pursued, ordering merits adjudication after opportunity to be...
Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5461 to 5480 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that the land sold was agricultural land situated beyond the specified municipal limits and retained its agricultural character on the date of transfer, as shown by revenue records, Talati certificate, 7/12 extracts, Google Map evidence and agricultural produce details. It therefore was not a capital asset, and the long-term capital gain addition was deleted. On the same footing, section 50C was held inapplicable because the deeming valuation provision applies only to transfer of a capital asset; the stamp value addition was deleted. The Tribunal also deleted the addition for alleged on-money, holding that any cash receipt from the same agricultural land sale could not be taxed separately as unexplained money. Inconsistent treatment with co-owners in the same transaction was found impermissible.
The ITAT held that the land sold was agricultural land situated beyond the specified municipal limits and retained its agricultural character on the date of transfer, as shown by revenue records, Talati certificate, 7/12 extracts, Google Map evidence and agricultural produce details. It therefore was not a capital asset, and the long-term capital gain addition was deleted. On the same footing, section 50C was held inapplicable because the deeming valuation provision applies only to transfer of a capital asset; the stamp value addition was deleted. The Tribunal also deleted the addition for alleged on-money, holding that any cash receipt from the same agricultural land sale could not be taxed separately as unexplained money. Inconsistent treatment with co-owners in the same transaction was found impermissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.