Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Indexation on a capital asset received in amalgamation was held to run from FY 2008-09 because the township had already been constructed and let out by the amalgamating company, with rental income taxed from that year; the tax-neutral transfer under the scheme did not shift the holding period to the later amalgamation order or occupancy certificate. The Tribunal also upheld the claimed short-term capital loss on sale of AIF units to a subsidiary, finding both acquisition and sale valuations followed the NAV method, the fall in value was explained by decline in underlying investments, and a related-party sale is not a colourable device without evidence of tax avoidance. Both revenue appeals were dismissed.
Indexation on a capital asset received in amalgamation was held to run from FY 2008-09 because the township had already been constructed and let out by the amalgamating company, with rental income taxed from that year; the tax-neutral transfer under the scheme did not shift the holding period to the later amalgamation order or occupancy certificate. The Tribunal also upheld the claimed short-term capital loss on sale of AIF units to a subsidiary, finding both acquisition and sale valuations followed the NAV method, the fall in value was explained by decline in underlying investments, and a related-party sale is not a colourable device without evidence of tax avoidance. Both revenue appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
