Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues: 1. Denial of cost of improvement in LTCG computation: AO's denial based on absence of improvement reference in sale deed and payment timing after notice issuance. Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion, noting AO's similar addition in spouse's case and lack of Revenue challenge. 2. Denial of deduction u/s 54: AO's denial due to alleged failure to meet construction deadline. Tribunal affirmed CIT(A)'s finding of asset sale, purchase, and compliance with u/s 54 conditions. Spouse's case comparison showed inconsistency. Tribunal ruled in favor of taxpayer, dismissing Revenue's grounds.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues: 1. Denial of cost of improvement in LTCG computation: AO's denial based on absence of improvement reference in sale deed and payment timing after notice issuance. Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion, noting AO's similar addition in spouse's case and lack of Revenue challenge. 2. Denial of deduction u/s 54: AO's denial due to alleged failure to meet construction deadline. Tribunal affirmed CIT(A)'s finding of asset sale, purchase, and compliance with u/s 54 conditions. Spouse's case comparison showed inconsistency. Tribunal ruled in favor of taxpayer, dismissing Revenue's grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
