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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal against the reopening of assessment u/s 148A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had alleged that the assessee had undeclared capital gains of more than Rs. 50 lakhs from the sale of immovable properties worth Rs. 1.33 crores. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had merely sold an immovable property for Rs. 43 lakhs and invested the proceeds in purchasing another property worth Rs. 90 lakhs, resulting in an addition of only Rs. 47 lakhs. The Tribunal held that it was not a case of capital gains of Rs. 1.33 crores escaping assessment, as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The reopening was deemed mechanical and lacking merit, as the Assessing Officer failed to differentiate between the two separate information sources and cumulatively considered them as escaped capital gains exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal against the reopening of assessment u/s 148A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had alleged that the assessee had undeclared capital gains of more than Rs. 50 lakhs from the sale of immovable properties worth Rs. 1.33 crores. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had merely sold an immovable property for Rs. 43 lakhs and invested the proceeds in purchasing another property worth Rs. 90 lakhs, resulting in an addition of only Rs. 47 lakhs. The Tribunal held that it was not a case of capital gains of Rs. 1.33 crores escaping assessment, as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The reopening was deemed mechanical and lacking merit, as the Assessing Officer failed to differentiate between the two separate information sources and cumulatively considered them as escaped capital gains exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
