Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case pertains to the exemption u/s 10(23G) for long-term capital gains arising from the purchase of shares for creating infrastructure facilities. The key points are: The assessee claimed exemption for long-term capital gains from the sale of shares acquired before 1.4.1997 for setting up an infrastructure facility. The Assessing Officer granted the exemption. The appellant objected, arguing that Section 10(23G) was not applicable before 1.4.1997. However, the CBDT clarified through a press release that the exemption u/s 10(23G) would apply to investments made before 1.6.1998, even prior to the amendment. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal correctly observed that the issue was resolved by the CBDT's clarification. The purchase of shares for creating an infrastructure facility is considered capital expenditure and not income, as per Explanation 2 to Section 10(23G) before its amendment. Therefore, no tax is payable on such capital expenditure. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's order.
The case pertains to the exemption u/s 10(23G) for long-term capital gains arising from the purchase of shares for creating infrastructure facilities. The key points are: The assessee claimed exemption for long-term capital gains from the sale of shares acquired before 1.4.1997 for setting up an infrastructure facility. The Assessing Officer granted the exemption. The appellant objected, arguing that Section 10(23G) was not applicable before 1.4.1997. However, the CBDT clarified through a press release that the exemption u/s 10(23G) would apply to investments made before 1.6.1998, even prior to the amendment. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal correctly observed that the issue was resolved by the CBDT's clarification. The purchase of shares for creating an infrastructure facility is considered capital expenditure and not income, as per Explanation 2 to Section 10(23G) before its amendment. Therefore, no tax is payable on such capital expenditure. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
