Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
