Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
