Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3381 to 3400 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In the case before ITAT Delhi, the issue was the admissibility of additional evidence related to Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and deduction under section 54F. The assessee submitted evidence to prove that the agricultural land sold was not a capital asset and that the sale consideration was reinvested as per section 54F. The Tribunal held that the additional evidence should be considered under Rule 46A, despite not being presented before the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) erred in not admitting the evidence, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) has powers equal to the AO and can accept additional claims without the need for the assessee to revise the return. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
In the case before ITAT Delhi, the issue was the admissibility of additional evidence related to Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and deduction under section 54F. The assessee submitted evidence to prove that the agricultural land sold was not a capital asset and that the sale consideration was reinvested as per section 54F. The Tribunal held that the additional evidence should be considered under Rule 46A, despite not being presented before the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) erred in not admitting the evidence, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) has powers equal to the AO and can accept additional claims without the need for the assessee to revise the return. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
