Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving a claim for deduction u/s 54 for LTCG. The claim was initially denied as the new asset was not purchased or constructed within the specified time frames u/s 54. The assessee argued that although the asset was booked earlier, possession was received within the prescribed period. Citing a Bombay High Court case, it was held that the date of possession should be considered the date of actual purchase for claiming exemption u/s 54F. Referring to a similar case, it was reiterated that possession date is crucial. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the exemption as possession was obtained within the required timeframe from the agreement to sell the original asset.
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving a claim for deduction u/s 54 for LTCG. The claim was initially denied as the new asset was not purchased or constructed within the specified time frames u/s 54. The assessee argued that although the asset was booked earlier, possession was received within the prescribed period. Citing a Bombay High Court case, it was held that the date of possession should be considered the date of actual purchase for claiming exemption u/s 54F. Referring to a similar case, it was reiterated that possession date is crucial. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the exemption as possession was obtained within the required timeframe from the agreement to sell the original asset.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
