Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
The ITAT reviewed a case regarding the exemption u/s 11 of the Act concerning non-charging of interest on advances for property purchase. The Assessee's society extended advances to a specified person for land purchase without interest or security. The AO argued it violated sec. 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(a). However, as the advances were deemed genuine business deals by CIT(E) and not in violation of sec. 13(1)(c), and since they related to land for educational activities, sec. 13(2)(a) was inapplicable. The revenue accepted the advances in previous years, and CIT(E) considered them genuine business transactions. Denying exemption u/s 11 based on notional interest addition was unjustified. The ITAT directed AO to vacate the additions, ruling in favor of the assessee.
The ITAT reviewed a case regarding the exemption u/s 11 of the Act concerning non-charging of interest on advances for property purchase. The Assessee's society extended advances to a specified person for land purchase without interest or security. The AO argued it violated sec. 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(a). However, as the advances were deemed genuine business deals by CIT(E) and not in violation of sec. 13(1)(c), and since they related to land for educational activities, sec. 13(2)(a) was inapplicable. The revenue accepted the advances in previous years, and CIT(E) considered them genuine business transactions. Denying exemption u/s 11 based on notional interest addition was unjustified. The ITAT directed AO to vacate the additions, ruling in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
