Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Cancellation of the original allotment and a subsequent fresh allotment to a different flat broke the link with the 2012 transaction; the later registered agreement was treated as a new transaction, so adoption of the earlier valuation date was rejected. The cited precedent was distinguished on facts, and the claim to use the 2012 allotment date for stamp duty valuation was not accepted. On the alternative issue, once the stamp valuation adopted by the authority was disputed and supporting valuation material was filed, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain a DVO report before making any addition. The matter was restored for DVO reference and recomputation after hearing.
Cancellation of the original allotment and a subsequent fresh allotment to a different flat broke the link with the 2012 transaction; the later registered agreement was treated as a new transaction, so adoption of the earlier valuation date was rejected. The cited precedent was distinguished on facts, and the claim to use the 2012 allotment date for stamp duty valuation was not accepted. On the alternative issue, once the stamp valuation adopted by the authority was disputed and supporting valuation material was filed, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain a DVO report before making any addition. The matter was restored for DVO reference and recomputation after hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
