Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
