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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
