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...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Jurisdictional objection under section 124(3) failed because the assessee, after receiving notice and participating in the assessment without protest, was treated as having accepted the AO's territorial jurisdiction. For LTCG computation, the Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition of converted land could not be restricted merely because part of the area was left for roads and drainage; the full claimed cost with indexation had to be allowed. Where seized cash and surrounding material showed receipt of on-money, substitution of declared consideration with valuation-based fair market value was upheld. Interest under sections 234A and 234B was deleted because seized cash available with the Revenue should have been adjusted, while section 234C was confined to any default before seizure.
Jurisdictional objection under section 124(3) failed because the assessee, after receiving notice and participating in the assessment without protest, was treated as having accepted the AO's territorial jurisdiction. For LTCG computation, the Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition of converted land could not be restricted merely because part of the area was left for roads and drainage; the full claimed cost with indexation had to be allowed. Where seized cash and surrounding material showed receipt of on-money, substitution of declared consideration with valuation-based fair market value was upheld. Interest under sections 234A and 234B was deleted because seized cash available with the Revenue should have been adjusted, while section 234C was confined to any default before seizure.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
