Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the re-computation of long-term capital gain related to determining the cost of improvement for constructing a concrete bridge over a rivulet in front of a shop to enhance accessibility. The Tribunal found that the expenditure on the bridge was capital in nature, essential for improving access to the shop and increasing footfall and value. The expenditure did not qualify as revenue expenditure as it directly contributed to enhancing business activities. The Tribunal noted that the evidence, including site plans and photographs, supported the expenditure and invalidated the AO's disallowance based on presumption. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the cost of the bridge construction was a legitimate capital expenditure and should be deductible for taxation purposes.
The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the re-computation of long-term capital gain related to determining the cost of improvement for constructing a concrete bridge over a rivulet in front of a shop to enhance accessibility. The Tribunal found that the expenditure on the bridge was capital in nature, essential for improving access to the shop and increasing footfall and value. The expenditure did not qualify as revenue expenditure as it directly contributed to enhancing business activities. The Tribunal noted that the evidence, including site plans and photographs, supported the expenditure and invalidated the AO's disallowance based on presumption. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the cost of the bridge construction was a legitimate capital expenditure and should be deductible for taxation purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.