Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
The Tribunal held that the workings provided by the Department for determining the fair market value (FMV) of shares at Rs. 131.86 per share were not in accordance with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal had intended to adopt Rule 11UA for FMV determination and had directed the Department to furnish workings accordingly. However, the Department's workings did not consider figures from certain intermediary companies. In the assessee's wife's case, the Tribunal observed that the AO's valuation of Rs. 131.86 per share suffered from fallacies and was not as per Rule 11UA. The AO subsequently computed FMV at Rs. 70.59 per share u/r 11UA in the wife's case. The assessee sought rectification to substitute the FMV of Rs. 131.86 per share with Rs. 70.59 per share, which the Tribunal allowed, considering it an arithmetical mistake rectifiable u/s 254(2). The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt FMV of Rs. 70.59 per share and recompute capital gains accordingly in the assessee's case.
The Tribunal held that the workings provided by the Department for determining the fair market value (FMV) of shares at Rs. 131.86 per share were not in accordance with Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal had intended to adopt Rule 11UA for FMV determination and had directed the Department to furnish workings accordingly. However, the Department's workings did not consider figures from certain intermediary companies. In the assessee's wife's case, the Tribunal observed that the AO's valuation of Rs. 131.86 per share suffered from fallacies and was not as per Rule 11UA. The AO subsequently computed FMV at Rs. 70.59 per share u/r 11UA in the wife's case. The assessee sought rectification to substitute the FMV of Rs. 131.86 per share with Rs. 70.59 per share, which the Tribunal allowed, considering it an arithmetical mistake rectifiable u/s 254(2). The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt FMV of Rs. 70.59 per share and recompute capital gains accordingly in the assessee's case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.