Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Chandigarh considered a revision u/s 263 by CIT regarding the period of limitation for completing requisite action. The assessment order was passed on 18/02/2014, and any issues requiring revision should have been addressed by 31/03/2016, within two years from the end of the relevant financial year. The revisionary order was found valid for transfer expenses, CLU charges, and deduction u/s 54F arising from reassessment. However, the revisionary proceedings related to the sale of land in District Solan were deemed barred by limitation as they pertained to the original assessment, not the reassessment. The availability of documentary evidence for transfer expenses and CLU charges was confirmed, and the AO's decision was upheld as not prejudicial to revenue. The deduction u/s 54F was restricted to Rs. 30,49,998 as determined by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
The ITAT Chandigarh considered a revision u/s 263 by CIT regarding the period of limitation for completing requisite action. The assessment order was passed on 18/02/2014, and any issues requiring revision should have been addressed by 31/03/2016, within two years from the end of the relevant financial year. The revisionary order was found valid for transfer expenses, CLU charges, and deduction u/s 54F arising from reassessment. However, the revisionary proceedings related to the sale of land in District Solan were deemed barred by limitation as they pertained to the original assessment, not the reassessment. The availability of documentary evidence for transfer expenses and CLU charges was confirmed, and the AO's decision was upheld as not prejudicial to revenue. The deduction u/s 54F was restricted to Rs. 30,49,998 as determined by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
