Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
This is a summary of a case dealing with the determination of fair market value (FMV) for computing long-term capital gains (LTCG) and allowing deductions for cost of improvements. The key points are: the Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's adoption of FMV as per the District Valuation Officer's report, rejecting the assessee's argument for using the 'reverse indexation method'. However, the Tribunal allowed the deduction for cost of improvement incurred in FY 1991-92, which was erroneously omitted by lower authorities. It also directed the Assessing Officer to rectify a mathematical mistake in computing the total indexed cost of improvement. The Tribunal's decision partially favored the assessee regarding the allowable deductions.
This is a summary of a case dealing with the determination of fair market value (FMV) for computing long-term capital gains (LTCG) and allowing deductions for cost of improvements. The key points are: the Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's adoption of FMV as per the District Valuation Officer's report, rejecting the assessee's argument for using the 'reverse indexation method'. However, the Tribunal allowed the deduction for cost of improvement incurred in FY 1991-92, which was erroneously omitted by lower authorities. It also directed the Assessing Officer to rectify a mathematical mistake in computing the total indexed cost of improvement. The Tribunal's decision partially favored the assessee regarding the allowable deductions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
