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...
ITAT allowed appellant's claim for deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, holding that filing the claim in the original or revised return is not mandatory for availing such deduction. The tribunal found that appellant purchased Delhi property for Rs.22,30,000 one year prior to selling Lucknow property, generating long-term capital gains of Rs.17,13,015. Since the purchase cost exceeded the capital gains amount, full deduction was permissible under sections 45(1) and 54(1)(ii). The addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) was deleted. Regarding addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) for difference between stamp value and sale consideration, ITAT granted relief of Rs.86,66,666 but made it subject to pending High Court proceedings regarding validity of the 2005 agreement to sell the Delhi property.
ITAT allowed appellant's claim for deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, holding that filing the claim in the original or revised return is not mandatory for availing such deduction. The tribunal found that appellant purchased Delhi property for Rs.22,30,000 one year prior to selling Lucknow property, generating long-term capital gains of Rs.17,13,015. Since the purchase cost exceeded the capital gains amount, full deduction was permissible under sections 45(1) and 54(1)(ii). The addition made by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) was deleted. Regarding addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) for difference between stamp value and sale consideration, ITAT granted relief of Rs.86,66,666 but made it subject to pending High Court proceedings regarding validity of the 2005 agreement to sell the Delhi property.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
