Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The ITAT Mumbai addressed errors in capital gain computation. The Assessee's claim of ₹ 859,680 was accepted over the AO's ₹ 791,221. An application u/s 154 highlighted 4 computational errors, directing AO to correct them. Set-off of short-term capital loss against gains was disputed. AO's method was challenged as not granting set-off on gains taxed at 30%. Section 70(2) allows inter-head adjustment for capital gains. The Assessee argued for setting off short-term capital loss (subject to securities transaction tax) against gains not taxed under section 115AD at 30%. Both gains and losses were computed u/r sections 48-55, which do not specify tax rates. ITAT ruled in favor of the Assessee, allowing the set-off as per section 70(2). AO was directed to permit the set-off, supporting the Assessee's appeal.
The ITAT Mumbai addressed errors in capital gain computation. The Assessee's claim of ₹ 859,680 was accepted over the AO's ₹ 791,221. An application u/s 154 highlighted 4 computational errors, directing AO to correct them. Set-off of short-term capital loss against gains was disputed. AO's method was challenged as not granting set-off on gains taxed at 30%. Section 70(2) allows inter-head adjustment for capital gains. The Assessee argued for setting off short-term capital loss (subject to securities transaction tax) against gains not taxed under section 115AD at 30%. Both gains and losses were computed u/r sections 48-55, which do not specify tax rates. ITAT ruled in favor of the Assessee, allowing the set-off as per section 70(2). AO was directed to permit the set-off, supporting the Assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.