Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal against the PCIT's revision order under s. 263 directing addition under s. 56(2)(vii)(b) for difference between stamp duty value and actual sale consideration of land. The Tribunal held that s. 56(2)(vii)(b) applies only to individuals/HUFs who "received" capital assets at lower prices, but here the partnership firm M/s Goyal Sons was the actual purchaser, not the individual assessees who were merely partners. The ITAT noted that s. 56(2)(x), which extends to "any person" including partnership firms, was introduced prospectively from 01.04.2017 and not applicable to AY 2016-17. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to Revenue's interests, thus failing to satisfy conditions precedent for s. 263 revision.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal against the PCIT's revision order under s. 263 directing addition under s. 56(2)(vii)(b) for difference between stamp duty value and actual sale consideration of land. The Tribunal held that s. 56(2)(vii)(b) applies only to individuals/HUFs who "received" capital assets at lower prices, but here the partnership firm M/s Goyal Sons was the actual purchaser, not the individual assessees who were merely partners. The ITAT noted that s. 56(2)(x), which extends to "any person" including partnership firms, was introduced prospectively from 01.04.2017 and not applicable to AY 2016-17. The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to Revenue's interests, thus failing to satisfy conditions precedent for s. 263 revision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
