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...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involves the interpretation of u/s 55(2)(b)(i) and u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) of the Income Tax Act regarding the cost of acquisition of bonus shares. The Tribunal held that the legislative intent of u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) is clear - capital gains on transfer of bonus shares should be computed with a cost of nil if conditions are met. The term "allotted" in sub-clause (iiia) refers to past allotment without specifying a date. The Tribunal rejected the argument that sub-clause (iiia) applies only to shares allotted post-1-4-1995. Referring to Dept. Circular No. 717, the Tribunal emphasized the simplicity of computation intended by the amendment. The Tribunal found that u/s 55(2)(b) applies to financial assets where a price is paid, not to bonus shares acquired without payment. Applying u/s 55(2)(b)(i) to bonus shares would render u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) redundant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the distinction between capital assets and bonus shares.
The case involves the interpretation of u/s 55(2)(b)(i) and u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) of the Income Tax Act regarding the cost of acquisition of bonus shares. The Tribunal held that the legislative intent of u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) is clear - capital gains on transfer of bonus shares should be computed with a cost of nil if conditions are met. The term "allotted" in sub-clause (iiia) refers to past allotment without specifying a date. The Tribunal rejected the argument that sub-clause (iiia) applies only to shares allotted post-1-4-1995. Referring to Dept. Circular No. 717, the Tribunal emphasized the simplicity of computation intended by the amendment. The Tribunal found that u/s 55(2)(b) applies to financial assets where a price is paid, not to bonus shares acquired without payment. Applying u/s 55(2)(b)(i) to bonus shares would render u/s 55(2)(aa)(B)(iiia) redundant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the distinction between capital assets and bonus shares.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
