Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Admission of crucial additional evidence supporting...
Composite residential flat exemption upheld where supplementary agreement merged adjoining units and additional evidence supported the taxpayer's investment claim.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Admission of crucial additional evidence supporting capital-gains exemptions was valid because the Commissioner (Appeals) obtained a remand report and found the supplementary agreement necessary for substantial justice. The agreement amalgamated two adjoining flats into one composite residential unit with a single surviving flat number. The taxpayer's investment and stipulated share in that composite unit supported exemptions under sections 54 and 54F, as the Assessing Officer had not verified facts sufficient to displace that position. The disallowance was deleted and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Admission of crucial additional evidence supporting capital-gains exemptions was valid because the Commissioner (Appeals) obtained a remand report and found the supplementary agreement necessary for substantial justice. The agreement amalgamated two adjoining flats into one composite residential unit with a single surviving flat number. The taxpayer's investment and stipulated share in that composite unit supported exemptions under sections 54 and 54F, as the Assessing Officer had not verified facts sufficient to displace that position. The disallowance was deleted and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.