Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The assessee disputed the stamp duty value of land purchased, leading to the matter being referred to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The DVO's valuation, based on comparable cases not objected by the assessee, was adopted as the assessee had not provided any other registered valuer's report. The CIT(A) upheld the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) for the difference between purchase price and DVO's valuation, as the assessee failed to controvert the findings. The ITAT found no merit in the assessee's grounds and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deciding against the assessee and confirming the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii).
The assessee disputed the stamp duty value of land purchased, leading to the matter being referred to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The DVO's valuation, based on comparable cases not objected by the assessee, was adopted as the assessee had not provided any other registered valuer's report. The CIT(A) upheld the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) for the difference between purchase price and DVO's valuation, as the assessee failed to controvert the findings. The ITAT found no merit in the assessee's grounds and upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deciding against the assessee and confirming the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
