Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee sold agricultural land during the year which the Assessing Officer (AO) treated as a capital asset, leading to levy of long-term capital gains tax. The Tribunal held that the AO erred in disregarding the certificate issued by the Tehsildar certifying the land as agricultural land situated beyond municipal limits. The AO failed to examine the discrepancies in distances mentioned by the Tehsildar and relied solely on the photocopy certificate without verifying its authenticity. The Tribunal relied on the certificate issued by the Survey of India, Government of India, to conclude that the land sold was agricultural land beyond municipal limits, not a capital asset, and hence not liable to capital gains tax u/s 45. Regarding deductions u/ss 54B and 54F claimed by the assessee for reinvestment in agricultural land and residential property, the Tribunal held that the Appellate Authorities have the power to consider claims based on material available on record, even if not claimed in the original or revised return. The assessee was held entitled to the deductions u/ss 54B and 54F. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
The assessee sold agricultural land during the year which the Assessing Officer (AO) treated as a capital asset, leading to levy of long-term capital gains tax. The Tribunal held that the AO erred in disregarding the certificate issued by the Tehsildar certifying the land as agricultural land situated beyond municipal limits. The AO failed to examine the discrepancies in distances mentioned by the Tehsildar and relied solely on the photocopy certificate without verifying its authenticity. The Tribunal relied on the certificate issued by the Survey of India, Government of India, to conclude that the land sold was agricultural land beyond municipal limits, not a capital asset, and hence not liable to capital gains tax u/s 45. Regarding deductions u/ss 54B and 54F claimed by the assessee for reinvestment in agricultural land and residential property, the Tribunal held that the Appellate Authorities have the power to consider claims based on material available on record, even if not claimed in the original or revised return. The assessee was held entitled to the deductions u/ss 54B and 54F. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.