Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
