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...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - family transaction - assessee has submitted that the assessee’s husband was a power of attorney holder of the property and could not convey the property as an agent and therefore, to avoid future litigation and to secure better title over the property, a sale deed in favour of the assessee, being the wife was executed - if we go by the narrations in the Sale deed, then the assessee’s claim that the impugned transaction is a “family transaction” where no consideration has passed is liable to be rejected since the actual vendor of the impugned property is not the Husband of appellant (POA holder) - AT
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - family transaction - assessee has submitted that the assessee’s husband was a power of attorney holder of the property and could not convey the property as an agent and therefore, to avoid future litigation and to secure better title over the property, a sale deed in favour of the assessee, being the wife was executed - if we go by the narrations in the Sale deed, then the assessee’s claim that the impugned transaction is a “family transaction” where no consideration has passed is liable to be rejected since the actual vendor of the impugned property is not the Husband of appellant (POA holder) - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
