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 allowed the assessee's appeal, following its earlier decision in the connected case of the assessee's spouse for the same transaction, and held that the impugned land was agricultural land. Consequently, the land did not give rise to taxable capital gains and the exemption claim under s.54B could not be denied merely on the AO's allegation regarding intended non-agricultural use by the purchaser or alleged non-compliance with s.63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act. ITAT held that the AO's basis for reopening under s.147, premised on alleged failure to fully and truly disclose material facts, was unsustainable, and the reassessment addition was deleted.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, following its earlier decision in the connected case of the assessee's spouse for the same transaction, and held that the impugned land was agricultural land. Consequently, the land did not give rise to taxable capital gains and the exemption claim under s.54B could not be denied merely on the AO's allegation regarding intended non-agricultural use by the purchaser or alleged non-compliance with s.63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act. ITAT held that the AO's basis for reopening under s.147, premised on alleged failure to fully and truly disclose material facts, was unsustainable, and the reassessment addition was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.