Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 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.