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...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Income from other sources u/s 56 (2) (x) - purchased the property - difference between the valuation adopted by the district valuation officer and actual consideration - While the appellant asserts the necessity of establishing "on money" payments to warrant taxation under the Act, the tribunal maintains that the absence of such evidence does not preclude the application of anti-avoidance provisions. - The tribunal upholds the decision of the CIT(A) to confirm the addition u/s 56(2)(x)(b), holding the appellant liable for the additional tax resulting from the disputed property valuation.
Income from other sources u/s 56 (2) (x) - purchased the property - difference between the valuation adopted by the district valuation officer and actual consideration - While the appellant asserts the necessity of establishing "on money" payments to warrant taxation under the Act, the tribunal maintains that the absence of such evidence does not preclude the application of anti-avoidance provisions. - The tribunal upholds the decision of the CIT(A) to confirm the addition u/s 56(2)(x)(b), holding the appellant liable for the additional tax resulting from the disputed property valuation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.