Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Whether accumulation under s.11(2) disclosed in Form 10 for construction at two schools could be treated as valid application when expenditure was also incurred on other schools run by the same charitable trust. The tribunal held that the trust's sole object was imparting education, and capital and revenue outgo on all schools run by it constituted application of income for charitable purposes; hence, the benefit of s.11(2) could not be denied merely because spending was not confined to the two named projects. However, since the AO noted discrepancies between claimed building expenditure and additions reflected in fixed asset records, allowance was made subject to verification, and the AO was directed to grant the claim upon such verification. - ITAT
Whether accumulation under s.11(2) disclosed in Form 10 for construction at two schools could be treated as valid application when expenditure was also incurred on other schools run by the same charitable trust. The tribunal held that the trust's sole object was imparting education, and capital and revenue outgo on all schools run by it constituted application of income for charitable purposes; hence, the benefit of s.11(2) could not be denied merely because spending was not confined to the two named projects. However, since the AO noted discrepancies between claimed building expenditure and additions reflected in fixed asset records, allowance was made subject to verification, and the AO was directed to grant the claim upon such verification. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
