Classification of imported salvaged shaft pieces as ship parts confirmed, reassessment time-barred and appeal allowed restoring original classificatio...
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...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7181 to 7200 of 96508 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether the assessee was entitled to claim indexed cost of improvement while computing LTCG on sale of a residential property. The disallowance was based only on the AO's view that the improvement expenditure was not commensurate with the super built-up area. The tribunal held that the purchase deed showed acquisition of a semi-constructed house, whereas the sale deed reflected a fully completed house with fittings and statutory utility connections, and the assessee produced contractor ledgers, bills and vouchers evidencing construction and improvements. Mere suspicion, without contrary material, could not justify rejection of the claimed improvement cost. The addition sustained in first appeal was set aside and the assessee's appeal was allowed. - ITAT
The dominant issue was whether the assessee was entitled to claim indexed cost of improvement while computing LTCG on sale of a residential property. The disallowance was based only on the AO's view that the improvement expenditure was not commensurate with the super built-up area. The tribunal held that the purchase deed showed acquisition of a semi-constructed house, whereas the sale deed reflected a fully completed house with fittings and statutory utility connections, and the assessee produced contractor ledgers, bills and vouchers evidencing construction and improvements. Mere suspicion, without contrary material, could not justify rejection of the claimed improvement cost. The addition sustained in first appeal was set aside and the assessee's appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.