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 ruled against Revenue in case involving double taxation of INR 6.90 crores differential amount received by Assessee from developer upon surrender of flat rights. Central Processing Unit erroneously added amount under Income from Other Sources head while processing return under section 143(1), despite Assessee having already included same amount in capital loss computation which was accepted. Form 26AS confirmed developer deducted tax at source on differential amount. CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition recognizing double taxation issue. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in decision and confirming Revenue failed to appreciate correct facts regarding same income being taxed twice under different heads.
ITAT ruled against Revenue in case involving double taxation of INR 6.90 crores differential amount received by Assessee from developer upon surrender of flat rights. Central Processing Unit erroneously added amount under Income from Other Sources head while processing return under section 143(1), despite Assessee having already included same amount in capital loss computation which was accepted. Form 26AS confirmed developer deducted tax at source on differential amount. CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition recognizing double taxation issue. ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in decision and confirming Revenue failed to appreciate correct facts regarding same income being taxed twice under different heads.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
