Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The ITAT held that the lease/rental income of the assessee company constitutes business income, as leasing the property is a principal object and the sole source of income, contrary to the assessee's return characterizing it as income from house property. The Tribunal rejected the argument based on the rule of consistency, emphasizing that a claim inconsistent with admitted facts and settled law cannot be perpetuated merely due to non-disturbance by the AO. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO's order restored. Regarding the disallowance of expenses related to the lease income, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, since the CIT(A) had not addressed this issue after altering the income classification.
The ITAT held that the lease/rental income of the assessee company constitutes business income, as leasing the property is a principal object and the sole source of income, contrary to the assessee's return characterizing it as income from house property. The Tribunal rejected the argument based on the rule of consistency, emphasizing that a claim inconsistent with admitted facts and settled law cannot be perpetuated merely due to non-disturbance by the AO. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO's order restored. Regarding the disallowance of expenses related to the lease income, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, since the CIT(A) had not addressed this issue after altering the income classification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.