Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
HC held that the expenditure incurred by the appellant to clear title of a disputed property constitutes a cost directly connected with the asset transfer under Section 48. The payment was deemed 'wholly and exclusively' incurred in connection with the property transfer, as the title was initially clouded and litigation existed between original vendors and their sisters. The court found that without such payment, the property transfer could not have been executed, effectively treating the amount as integral to the sale consideration. The expenditure was therefore allowable as part of the cost of acquisition for long-term capital gains computation, ultimately deciding in favor of the assessee.
HC held that the expenditure incurred by the appellant to clear title of a disputed property constitutes a cost directly connected with the asset transfer under Section 48. The payment was deemed 'wholly and exclusively' incurred in connection with the property transfer, as the title was initially clouded and litigation existed between original vendors and their sisters. The court found that without such payment, the property transfer could not have been executed, effectively treating the amount as integral to the sale consideration. The expenditure was therefore allowable as part of the cost of acquisition for long-term capital gains computation, ultimately deciding in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.