Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Validity of reopening an assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, denial of deduction u/s 54F, and the addition on the ground of owning more than one residential house. The key points are: the assessee did not fail to furnish requisite details, satisfying the proviso to Section 147; the Assessing Officer could not have validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 based on website information; different floors of a property cannot be construed as independent residential units, as decided by the Tribunal in the assessee's own wealth tax case; merely having several independent residential units does not impact the claim for deduction u/s 54F. The reassessment proceedings were quashed, and the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 90 crores u/s 54F. The denial of deduction u/s 54F for not utilizing the entire sale proceeds was addressed, clarifying that no deduction u/s 80G was claimed for the donation to the trust. The loan from Alert Buildtech was accepted as genuine, and no addition was made u/s 68.
Validity of reopening an assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, denial of deduction u/s 54F, and the addition on the ground of owning more than one residential house. The key points are: the assessee did not fail to furnish requisite details, satisfying the proviso to Section 147; the Assessing Officer could not have validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 based on website information; different floors of a property cannot be construed as independent residential units, as decided by the Tribunal in the assessee's own wealth tax case; merely having several independent residential units does not impact the claim for deduction u/s 54F. The reassessment proceedings were quashed, and the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 90 crores u/s 54F. The denial of deduction u/s 54F for not utilizing the entire sale proceeds was addressed, clarifying that no deduction u/s 80G was claimed for the donation to the trust. The loan from Alert Buildtech was accepted as genuine, and no addition was made u/s 68.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
