Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
