Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT quashed the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 54EC as the land was used for agricultural purposes in the preceding two years before its sale, as evident from the 7/12 extracts. The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer's conclusion accepting the assessee's claim was reasonable and not erroneous, and the PCIT failed to establish that the order was prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The reference to the Valuation Officer was not mandatory, and the PCIT lacked authority to direct such a reference. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the grounds raised.
The ITAT quashed the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 54EC as the land was used for agricultural purposes in the preceding two years before its sale, as evident from the 7/12 extracts. The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer's conclusion accepting the assessee's claim was reasonable and not erroneous, and the PCIT failed to establish that the order was prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The reference to the Valuation Officer was not mandatory, and the PCIT lacked authority to direct such a reference. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the grounds raised.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
