Undisclosed foreign asset classification requires an unexplained source; unrebutted affidavits and corroborative evidence defeated the Black Money Act...
Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 95833 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
