Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 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 requires purchase of the new residential house within the statutory period, and an unregistered banakhat by itself was not enough to prove completion of purchase within that time frame. Because the substantial payment was made more than one year before transfer and the registered sale deed was executed beyond two years after transfer, the deduction could not be sustained on the existing record; the issue was restored for limited verification of the flow of funds and linkage with sale proceeds. The addition under section 69 also required fresh factual examination, as the bank statements and documentary evidence were not properly verified and it was unclear whether all material had been before the AO. Both matters were remanded.
Section 54F requires purchase of the new residential house within the statutory period, and an unregistered banakhat by itself was not enough to prove completion of purchase within that time frame. Because the substantial payment was made more than one year before transfer and the registered sale deed was executed beyond two years after transfer, the deduction could not be sustained on the existing record; the issue was restored for limited verification of the flow of funds and linkage with sale proceeds. The addition under section 69 also required fresh factual examination, as the bank statements and documentary evidence were not properly verified and it was unclear whether all material had been before the AO. Both matters were remanded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.