Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s exercise of suo moto power u/s 154 to rectify their earlier order. The CIT(A) had not considered the Supreme Court's ratio decidendi in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., which amounts to a mistake apparent on record. The assessee club claimed interest income as non-taxable based on mutuality principles, but the Assessing Officer rejected this claim after allowing 10% deduction for expenses. The Tribunal found the assessee did not raise this claim before the AO or CIT(A) initially, nor provide evidence to substantiate their case aligning with the Bangalore Club judgments. Therefore, the AO rightly moved for rectification before CIT(A) in light of the Madras High Court's binding order in the assessee's own case, which concurred with the Bangalore Club ratio upheld by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as devoid of merit.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s exercise of suo moto power u/s 154 to rectify their earlier order. The CIT(A) had not considered the Supreme Court's ratio decidendi in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., which amounts to a mistake apparent on record. The assessee club claimed interest income as non-taxable based on mutuality principles, but the Assessing Officer rejected this claim after allowing 10% deduction for expenses. The Tribunal found the assessee did not raise this claim before the AO or CIT(A) initially, nor provide evidence to substantiate their case aligning with the Bangalore Club judgments. Therefore, the AO rightly moved for rectification before CIT(A) in light of the Madras High Court's binding order in the assessee's own case, which concurred with the Bangalore Club ratio upheld by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals as devoid of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
