Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
