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...
The ITAT held that compensation paid by the assessee to the first purchaser for cancellation of an agreement to sale qualifies as cost of improvement or expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the capital asset under Section 48 of the Act. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that such compensation does not constitute cost of improvement merely because no physical enhancement was made to the property. It was observed that improvement includes any act that enhances the asset's value, including clearing title and legal encumbrances. The payment was deemed necessary to enable a sale free from litigation, thereby increasing the asset's marketability and value. Consequently, the compensation was held to be deductible from the sale consideration for capital gains computation, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that compensation paid by the assessee to the first purchaser for cancellation of an agreement to sale qualifies as cost of improvement or expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the capital asset under Section 48 of the Act. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that such compensation does not constitute cost of improvement merely because no physical enhancement was made to the property. It was observed that improvement includes any act that enhances the asset's value, including clearing title and legal encumbrances. The payment was deemed necessary to enable a sale free from litigation, thereby increasing the asset's marketability and value. Consequently, the compensation was held to be deductible from the sale consideration for capital gains computation, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.