Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The ITAT held that the appellant's surrender of tenancy rights constituted a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47). The Tribunal determined that the tenancy right was acquired in 1954 through payment of a non-refundable security deposit of Rs. 1,080, which represented the cost of acquisition under section 55(2)(a)(i). Since the asset was acquired before April 1, 2001, the appellant was entitled to adopt either the fair market value as on that date or the actual cost as the acquisition cost, with indexation benefits under section 48. Based on the valuation certified by a registered government valuer, the transaction resulted in a net capital loss. The ITAT deleted the addition made by the AO, allowing the appellant's grounds of appeal.
The ITAT held that the appellant's surrender of tenancy rights constituted a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47). The Tribunal determined that the tenancy right was acquired in 1954 through payment of a non-refundable security deposit of Rs. 1,080, which represented the cost of acquisition under section 55(2)(a)(i). Since the asset was acquired before April 1, 2001, the appellant was entitled to adopt either the fair market value as on that date or the actual cost as the acquisition cost, with indexation benefits under section 48. Based on the valuation certified by a registered government valuer, the transaction resulted in a net capital loss. The ITAT deleted the addition made by the AO, allowing the appellant's grounds of appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
