Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the denial of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) for late filing of the income tax return beyond the time specified u/s 139(1) or for filing the return u/s 139(4D) instead of Section 139(4C) is not justified. The Tribunal ruled that the Department could not point out any relevant provision that disentitles the assessee from claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) for non-filing or late filing of the return. Consequently, the action of the lower authorities in denying the exemption on these grounds was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption claimed u/s 10(23C)(iiiab). The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the denial of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) for late filing of the income tax return beyond the time specified u/s 139(1) or for filing the return u/s 139(4D) instead of Section 139(4C) is not justified. The Tribunal ruled that the Department could not point out any relevant provision that disentitles the assessee from claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) for non-filing or late filing of the return. Consequently, the action of the lower authorities in denying the exemption on these grounds was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption claimed u/s 10(23C)(iiiab). The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.