Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 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 rejected the Revenue's appeal concerning disallowance of exemption under s.10(23C)(vi). The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the AO failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of s.143(3) first proviso, which requires specific show-cause notice before rejecting an exemption claim. The ITAT determined it had jurisdiction to decide this fundamental question under Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, despite the Revenue's technical objection. Finding no evidence that the AO had fulfilled the statutory requirements of providing proper opportunity to the assessee, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's legal arguments and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The ITAT rejected the Revenue's appeal concerning disallowance of exemption under s.10(23C)(vi). The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the AO failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of s.143(3) first proviso, which requires specific show-cause notice before rejecting an exemption claim. The ITAT determined it had jurisdiction to decide this fundamental question under Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, despite the Revenue's technical objection. Finding no evidence that the AO had fulfilled the statutory requirements of providing proper opportunity to the assessee, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's legal arguments and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
