Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
