Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
SC held that the agreement to sell constituted a conveyance under Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act, requiring full stamp duty payment. Despite the property being occupied on rental basis, the agreement's clause regarding possession transfer satisfied requirements for treating it as a conveyance. The appellant's possession, evidenced by pending litigation for specific performance and eviction, established liability for stamp duty. The Court upheld lower courts' orders to recover deficit duty and penalty, with the provision that any previously paid stamp duty would be deducted from future sale deed duty calculations. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that possession, whether current or promised, triggers stamp duty obligation.
SC held that the agreement to sell constituted a conveyance under Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of Bombay Stamp Act, requiring full stamp duty payment. Despite the property being occupied on rental basis, the agreement's clause regarding possession transfer satisfied requirements for treating it as a conveyance. The appellant's possession, evidenced by pending litigation for specific performance and eviction, established liability for stamp duty. The Court upheld lower courts' orders to recover deficit duty and penalty, with the provision that any previously paid stamp duty would be deducted from future sale deed duty calculations. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that possession, whether current or promised, triggers stamp duty obligation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
