Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 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 54 capital-gains exemption remains available where capital gains are invested in a new residential house within the prescribed period, even if the unutilised amount was not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme before the return-filing due date. Treating section 54 as a beneficial provision, the Tribunal regarded the deposit requirement as procedural where the substantive investment condition was met. The taxpayer's share in the jointly acquired property exceeded the capital gain and the purchase occurred before the extended return-filing due date. Accordingly, the section 54 deduction was allowed and the disallowance was deleted.
Section 54 capital-gains exemption remains available where capital gains are invested in a new residential house within the prescribed period, even if the unutilised amount was not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme before the return-filing due date. Treating section 54 as a beneficial provision, the Tribunal regarded the deposit requirement as procedural where the substantive investment condition was met. The taxpayer's share in the jointly acquired property exceeded the capital gain and the purchase occurred before the extended return-filing due date. Accordingly, the section 54 deduction was allowed and the disallowance was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.