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...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
The assessment order was passed without verifying the allowability of the cost of improvement as per Section 55(1)(b)(2), rendering it erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue's interests. The assessee's claim for cost of improvement, comprising interior work, kitchen appliances, plywood flooring, and tiles, is allowable u/s 55(1)(b)(2) as the expenses were capital in nature, enhancing the property's value. The assessee submitted a valuation report and bank statements as evidence, which the AO examined and accepted. The CIT emphasized the need for a more in-depth inquiry, citing Explanation 2 to Section 263, but Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the inquiry was not conducted as per the CIT's preference. The AO conducted adequate inquiries, and his acceptance of the cost of improvement was a plausible view. The revisionary proceedings u/s 263 were unjustified as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to Revenue's interests. Consequently, the revisionary order passed by the CIT u/s 263 is quashed, and the assessee's appeal is allowed.
The assessment order was passed without verifying the allowability of the cost of improvement as per Section 55(1)(b)(2), rendering it erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue's interests. The assessee's claim for cost of improvement, comprising interior work, kitchen appliances, plywood flooring, and tiles, is allowable u/s 55(1)(b)(2) as the expenses were capital in nature, enhancing the property's value. The assessee submitted a valuation report and bank statements as evidence, which the AO examined and accepted. The CIT emphasized the need for a more in-depth inquiry, citing Explanation 2 to Section 263, but Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the inquiry was not conducted as per the CIT's preference. The AO conducted adequate inquiries, and his acceptance of the cost of improvement was a plausible view. The revisionary proceedings u/s 263 were unjustified as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to Revenue's interests. Consequently, the revisionary order passed by the CIT u/s 263 is quashed, and the assessee's appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
