Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
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.