Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Page of 4920
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 98394 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In this ITAT decision, the tribunal addressed two key issues:...
Property Sale Valuation and Interest Expense Deduction Upheld: Fair Market Value Assessment Supports Taxpayer's Claims Under Sections 43CA and 36(1)(iii)
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
In this ITAT decision, the tribunal addressed two key issues: (1) valuation of property sale and (2) nature of interest expenses. Regarding property sale under Section 43CA, the tribunal held that the sale consideration declared by the assessee (Rs. 28.82 Cr with Rs. 6.19 Cr interest) was acceptable, as the fair market value determined by DVO (Rs. 37.45 Cr) differed by less than 10%. The tribunal rejected additional tax demands, finding the assessee's declared value valid. For conversion charges, the tribunal classified interest expenses as revenue expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii), noting the asset was put to use after capitalization. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeals, affirming the assessee's tax treatment for both issues.
In this ITAT decision, the tribunal addressed two key issues: (1) valuation of property sale and (2) nature of interest expenses. Regarding property sale under Section 43CA, the tribunal held that the sale consideration declared by the assessee (Rs. 28.82 Cr with Rs. 6.19 Cr interest) was acceptable, as the fair market value determined by DVO (Rs. 37.45 Cr) differed by less than 10%. The tribunal rejected additional tax demands, finding the assessee's declared value valid. For conversion charges, the tribunal classified interest expenses as revenue expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii), noting the asset was put to use after capitalization. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeals, affirming the assessee's tax treatment for both issues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.