Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
