Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held the assessee ineligible for exemption u/s 54/54F as the assessee already owned more than one independent residential house at the time of transfer, evidenced by three separate rentable residential units with independent kitchens in one building, rendering the claim barred at the threshold. The Tribunal rejected reliance on contrary case law as distinguishable. On unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation, ITAT accepted the assessee's explanation that deposits were sourced from earlier cash withdrawals, refundable rental security deposits and amounts received under a joint development agreement forming part of sale consideration, deleting the addition u/s 69A. Consequently, issues on tax rate u/s 115BBE were rendered infructuous. The appeal was partly allowed.
ITAT held the assessee ineligible for exemption u/s 54/54F as the assessee already owned more than one independent residential house at the time of transfer, evidenced by three separate rentable residential units with independent kitchens in one building, rendering the claim barred at the threshold. The Tribunal rejected reliance on contrary case law as distinguishable. On unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation, ITAT accepted the assessee's explanation that deposits were sourced from earlier cash withdrawals, refundable rental security deposits and amounts received under a joint development agreement forming part of sale consideration, deleting the addition u/s 69A. Consequently, issues on tax rate u/s 115BBE were rendered infructuous. The appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.