Transfer pricing method selection favours TNMM where medical-equipment distribution involves substantial post-import value addition and operational ri...
Post-export shipping bill conversion remains available where contemporaneous evidence supports EPCG benefits despite curable procedural omissions and ...
The appellant did not acquire a new residential property within the specified time period, failing the mandatory condition for deduction u/s 54. The CIT(A)-NFAC incorrectly invoked the "one year before the transfer" limb, concluding that the assessee is ineligible for deduction. However, the relevant date for computing the limitation u/s 54 in all three eventualities is the payment of consideration and possession of the new property. Judicial precedents support this interpretation. The assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 54.
The appellant did not acquire a new residential property within the specified time period, failing the mandatory condition for deduction u/s 54. The CIT(A)-NFAC incorrectly invoked the "one year before the transfer" limb, concluding that the assessee is ineligible for deduction. However, the relevant date for computing the limitation u/s 54 in all three eventualities is the payment of consideration and possession of the new property. Judicial precedents support this interpretation. The assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 54.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
