Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT ruled that for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, the Assessing Officer (AO) incorrectly applied Rule 11UA in determining fair market value (FMV) of shares. The tribunal found that the rule requiring FMV of underlying assets was only applicable from AY 2018-19. The AO should have valued shares using book value as per the balance sheet for the relevant assessment years. The CIT(A)'s order deleting additions under section 56(2)(vii)(c) was upheld, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed, finding no procedural or substantive irregularities in the assessee's share acquisition and valuation.
ITAT ruled that for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, the Assessing Officer (AO) incorrectly applied Rule 11UA in determining fair market value (FMV) of shares. The tribunal found that the rule requiring FMV of underlying assets was only applicable from AY 2018-19. The AO should have valued shares using book value as per the balance sheet for the relevant assessment years. The CIT(A)'s order deleting additions under section 56(2)(vii)(c) was upheld, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed, finding no procedural or substantive irregularities in the assessee's share acquisition and valuation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
