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 held that the immovable property purchased by the assessee was agricultural land on the date of transfer, as evidenced by the registered sale deed and Form 7 extract, and not converted into non-agricultural land. The mere levy of higher stamp duty by the Sub-Registrar, based on a draft AUDA TP Scheme and non-agricultural jantri rates, could not alter the legal character of the land for purposes of the IT Act. ITAT further found the AO's assumption of 40% acquisition by AUDA to be factually incorrect, the scheme being only in draft and unapproved form. As the assessee's declared consideration exceeded the applicable agricultural jantri value, no benefit or understatement arose so as to trigger s.56(2)(x). The addition made under s.56(2)(x) was therefore deleted and the assessee's appeal allowed.
ITAT held that the immovable property purchased by the assessee was agricultural land on the date of transfer, as evidenced by the registered sale deed and Form 7 extract, and not converted into non-agricultural land. The mere levy of higher stamp duty by the Sub-Registrar, based on a draft AUDA TP Scheme and non-agricultural jantri rates, could not alter the legal character of the land for purposes of the IT Act. ITAT further found the AO's assumption of 40% acquisition by AUDA to be factually incorrect, the scheme being only in draft and unapproved form. As the assessee's declared consideration exceeded the applicable agricultural jantri value, no benefit or understatement arose so as to trigger s.56(2)(x). The addition made under s.56(2)(x) was therefore deleted and the assessee's appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.