Corporate guarantee invocation in insolvency petition: enforceability upheld, conditional sanction letter not a novation, limitation not barred after ...
NPCI-based bank account validation for IEC applications and modifications enables real-time validation; incorrect details block submission or trigger ...
Creation/Invocation of pledge of securities through depository system: standardized pledge forms, notice requirement and invocation notifications to p...
Calendar Spread margin benefit for Single Stock Derivatives suspended on expiry day for expiring contracts; exchanges must implement systems and rule ...
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.