Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
