Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 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 deals with the characterization of profit/receipts from the sale of land, whether it should be treated as business income or long-term capital gain. The Supreme Court in CIT vs. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal held that a trader may acquire an asset for personal purposes and hold it separate from their business stock. There is no presumption that every acquisition by a dealer is for business purposes; the intention must be determined based on the acquirer's conduct and dealings with the asset. In this case, since the assessee held the land for more than five years without developmental activity, and the Revenue accepted the treatment as long-term capital gain in preceding and succeeding years, the CIT(A)/NFAC correctly deleted the addition made by the AO, treating the profit as long-term capital gain. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision.
The case deals with the characterization of profit/receipts from the sale of land, whether it should be treated as business income or long-term capital gain. The Supreme Court in CIT vs. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal held that a trader may acquire an asset for personal purposes and hold it separate from their business stock. There is no presumption that every acquisition by a dealer is for business purposes; the intention must be determined based on the acquirer's conduct and dealings with the asset. In this case, since the assessee held the land for more than five years without developmental activity, and the Revenue accepted the treatment as long-term capital gain in preceding and succeeding years, the CIT(A)/NFAC correctly deleted the addition made by the AO, treating the profit as long-term capital gain. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
