Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
ITAT ruled in favor of assessee regarding additions under s.43CA concerning sale of 12 flats below market value. While market value exceeded agreement value at registration, documentation proved agreement values were compliant with market rates at booking time. ITAT emphasized that mere auditor observations about lower sale values cannot justify additions without considering Act provisions. Since assessee received partial consideration as advance per original agreements and executed sales based on those values despite subsequent market appreciation, no additions were warranted under s.43CA(3) and (4). The significant time gap between booking and registration dates explained the apparent value discrepancy.
ITAT ruled in favor of assessee regarding additions under s.43CA concerning sale of 12 flats below market value. While market value exceeded agreement value at registration, documentation proved agreement values were compliant with market rates at booking time. ITAT emphasized that mere auditor observations about lower sale values cannot justify additions without considering Act provisions. Since assessee received partial consideration as advance per original agreements and executed sales based on those values despite subsequent market appreciation, no additions were warranted under s.43CA(3) and (4). The significant time gap between booking and registration dates explained the apparent value discrepancy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
