Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.