Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The case pertains to the applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act in determining the full value of consideration for computing capital gains in the hands of the purchaser (assessee). The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 50C to deem the stamp duty valuation as the full value of consideration, treating the difference as unexplained investment in the hands of the purchaser. However, Section 50C is applicable to the seller, not the purchaser. Section 56(2)(vii), introduced in 2014, provides for deeming the stamp duty valuation as the purchase cost for the buyer, with the difference treated as a deemed gift. Since the assessment year was prior to 2014, this provision was not applicable. The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was unsustainable and contrary to law, observing a vindictive approach without understanding the issue. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The case pertains to the applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act in determining the full value of consideration for computing capital gains in the hands of the purchaser (assessee). The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 50C to deem the stamp duty valuation as the full value of consideration, treating the difference as unexplained investment in the hands of the purchaser. However, Section 50C is applicable to the seller, not the purchaser. Section 56(2)(vii), introduced in 2014, provides for deeming the stamp duty valuation as the purchase cost for the buyer, with the difference treated as a deemed gift. Since the assessment year was prior to 2014, this provision was not applicable. The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was unsustainable and contrary to law, observing a vindictive approach without understanding the issue. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
