Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
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...
The ITAT adjudicated on the following issues: 1. Cost of acquisition for computing long-term capital gains on sale of ancestral agricultural land: The assessee's valuation report was found unreliable. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to refer it to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the correct market value as on 01.04.1981, after considering the assessee's objections. 2. Denial of deduction u/s 54F for purchase of new residential property: The ITAT upheld the disallowance, as the assessee failed to establish that a residential house was purchased within the stipulated time. 3. Date of acquisition of new property for Section 54F: The ITAT accepted the assessee's contention that the investment date should be considered as 26.07.2017, when the agreement was executed and full payment was made, despite delayed registration. 4. Addition for unexplained cash deposits in bank account: The ITAT treated cash deposits up to Rs. 15.48 lakhs as explained from agricultural income but confirmed the addition of Rs. 9 lakhs for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization.
The ITAT adjudicated on the following issues: 1. Cost of acquisition for computing long-term capital gains on sale of ancestral agricultural land: The assessee's valuation report was found unreliable. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to refer it to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the correct market value as on 01.04.1981, after considering the assessee's objections. 2. Denial of deduction u/s 54F for purchase of new residential property: The ITAT upheld the disallowance, as the assessee failed to establish that a residential house was purchased within the stipulated time. 3. Date of acquisition of new property for Section 54F: The ITAT accepted the assessee's contention that the investment date should be considered as 26.07.2017, when the agreement was executed and full payment was made, despite delayed registration. 4. Addition for unexplained cash deposits in bank account: The ITAT treated cash deposits up to Rs. 15.48 lakhs as explained from agricultural income but confirmed the addition of Rs. 9 lakhs for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
