Functional comparability governs selection of support-service and IT-enabled service comparables, with verification required for unresolved data and m...
Bank account freezing requires statutory authority; anti-money-laundering compliance and KYC monitoring do not permit unilateral indefinite restrictio...
ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the ULIP constitutes a "capital asset" within s.2(14)(a) for the relevant assessment year, because the insurance policy did not attract s.10(10D) exemption. Consequently, the received amount must be treated for capital gains/loss computation rather than as income from other sources. The Tribunal rejected the coordinate-bench rationale limiting capital-asset treatment to amendments effective w.e.f. 2021, and directed consequential computation of capital gains/loss in accordance with tax law. Matter remitted for arithmetic determination consistent with this legal characterization; appeal allowed.
ITAT allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the ULIP constitutes a "capital asset" within s.2(14)(a) for the relevant assessment year, because the insurance policy did not attract s.10(10D) exemption. Consequently, the received amount must be treated for capital gains/loss computation rather than as income from other sources. The Tribunal rejected the coordinate-bench rationale limiting capital-asset treatment to amendments effective w.e.f. 2021, and directed consequential computation of capital gains/loss in accordance with tax law. Matter remitted for arithmetic determination consistent with this legal characterization; appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.