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 assessee's appeal regarding exemption under Section 54. Assessee sold flats via agreement dated 9/1/2020 and purchased replacement property through agreement dated 18/03/2021, with consideration discharged by 12/3/2021. Lower authorities denied exemption alleging fund rotation and questioning real ownership. ITAT held assessee was real economic owner of original property, executed transactions in individual capacity, and received consideration in her bank account. Purchase consideration was discharged within stipulated two-year timeframe under Section 54. Tribunal found AO failed to consider prior transactions where assessee parked funds in fixed deposits pending tax clearance. Since replacement property purchase occurred within prescribed period after original asset transfer, Section 54 exemption was validly claimed and allowed.
ITAT allowed assessee's appeal regarding exemption under Section 54. Assessee sold flats via agreement dated 9/1/2020 and purchased replacement property through agreement dated 18/03/2021, with consideration discharged by 12/3/2021. Lower authorities denied exemption alleging fund rotation and questioning real ownership. ITAT held assessee was real economic owner of original property, executed transactions in individual capacity, and received consideration in her bank account. Purchase consideration was discharged within stipulated two-year timeframe under Section 54. Tribunal found AO failed to consider prior transactions where assessee parked funds in fixed deposits pending tax clearance. Since replacement property purchase occurred within prescribed period after original asset transfer, Section 54 exemption was validly claimed and allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
