Mark-to-Market losses on principal-protected debentures are deductible as business expenditure when the obligation is crystallized under mercantile ac...
Deferred Payment of Customs Duty extended to Eligible Manufacturer Importers with electronic registration and ICEGATE authentication for conditional c...
Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
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.