Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
