Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
