Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
The ITAT held that the sum received by the assessee pursuant to settlement and withdrawal of her pending civil suit asserting inheritance rights in immovable property did not constitute a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of sections 2(14) read with 2(47). Because the court would have determined the assessee's title only upon adjudication, no vested right was transferred; the payment was consideration to obtain an assurance and remove encumbrances on title by preventing further pursuit of estate claims. Consequently the receipt is not taxable as capital gains and the assessee's grounds on this point were allowed, aligning with the DRP's conclusion.
The ITAT held that the sum received by the assessee pursuant to settlement and withdrawal of her pending civil suit asserting inheritance rights in immovable property did not constitute a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of sections 2(14) read with 2(47). Because the court would have determined the assessee's title only upon adjudication, no vested right was transferred; the payment was consideration to obtain an assurance and remove encumbrances on title by preventing further pursuit of estate claims. Consequently the receipt is not taxable as capital gains and the assessee's grounds on this point were allowed, aligning with the DRP's conclusion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.