Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Revision u/s 263 - admissibility of deduction u/s 54F - CIT has misinterpreted the provision of law to hold that the assessee was ineligible to claim exemption u/s. 54F of the Act on the investment made in the land beyond two years - The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's interpretation of the law, stating that Section 54F allows a time period of three years for the construction of a house property to claim exemption. As the purchase of land was intended for construction, the Pr.CIT's interpretation was deemed incorrect. Consequently, the order of the Pr.CIT was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Revision u/s 263 - admissibility of deduction u/s 54F - CIT has misinterpreted the provision of law to hold that the assessee was ineligible to claim exemption u/s. 54F of the Act on the investment made in the land beyond two years - The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's interpretation of the law, stating that Section 54F allows a time period of three years for the construction of a house property to claim exemption. As the purchase of land was intended for construction, the Pr.CIT's interpretation was deemed incorrect. Consequently, the order of the Pr.CIT was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
