Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 54EC of the Income Tax Act for investment in bonds of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI). The assessee had invested the advance money received towards the sale of a property in the specified NHAI bonds before the date of transfer. This is in line with Circular No. 359 and the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Subhash Vinayak Supnekar, which ruled that when an advance received under an agreement to sell a capital asset is invested in specified bonds, the benefit of Section 54EC is available. The Tribunal observed a direct nexus between the advance received and the investment made, thereby allowing the assessee's appeal.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 54EC of the Income Tax Act for investment in bonds of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI). The assessee had invested the advance money received towards the sale of a property in the specified NHAI bonds before the date of transfer. This is in line with Circular No. 359 and the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Subhash Vinayak Supnekar, which ruled that when an advance received under an agreement to sell a capital asset is invested in specified bonds, the benefit of Section 54EC is available. The Tribunal observed a direct nexus between the advance received and the investment made, thereby allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
