Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that when an assessee receives property consequent to the liquidation of a company, the period of holding the asset is calculated from the date the previous owner (the company) held it, as per Explanation 1 to Section 2(42A) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the gain on the subsequent sale of the land received from the liquidated company was rightly treated as long-term capital gain by the assessee. Additionally, the provisions of Section 50C, which deal with deeming the stamp duty value as full consideration for transfer, were held inapplicable as the assessee did not transfer any capital asset but received the land on distribution of assets upon the company's liquidation, which is not considered a transfer u/s 46(1).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that when an assessee receives property consequent to the liquidation of a company, the period of holding the asset is calculated from the date the previous owner (the company) held it, as per Explanation 1 to Section 2(42A) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the gain on the subsequent sale of the land received from the liquidated company was rightly treated as long-term capital gain by the assessee. Additionally, the provisions of Section 50C, which deal with deeming the stamp duty value as full consideration for transfer, were held inapplicable as the assessee did not transfer any capital asset but received the land on distribution of assets upon the company's liquidation, which is not considered a transfer u/s 46(1).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.