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 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.