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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 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 Hyderabad addressed the issue of determining the correct head of income for gains on the sale of property, whether it should be classified as business income or capital gains based on the intention of the assessee. The tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in applying decisions across connected assessees with similar Joint Development Agreements (JDA). The tribunal held that if a co-ordinate Bench had previously ruled in favor of an assessee with rights from the same JDA, the principle should be applied uniformly unless there is a change in law or facts. The Revenue's inconsistent treatment of assessees in similar situations was deemed unacceptable, as it goes against the principle of certainty and fairness in tax law. The tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the income as long-term capital gains, in line with the co-ordinate Bench's reasoning and circulars issued by the Revenue.
The ITAT Hyderabad addressed the issue of determining the correct head of income for gains on the sale of property, whether it should be classified as business income or capital gains based on the intention of the assessee. The tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in applying decisions across connected assessees with similar Joint Development Agreements (JDA). The tribunal held that if a co-ordinate Bench had previously ruled in favor of an assessee with rights from the same JDA, the principle should be applied uniformly unless there is a change in law or facts. The Revenue's inconsistent treatment of assessees in similar situations was deemed unacceptable, as it goes against the principle of certainty and fairness in tax law. The tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the income as long-term capital gains, in line with the co-ordinate Bench's reasoning and circulars issued by the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
