Charity-run tree plantation and maintenance for environmental preservation qualifies as "charitable activity", making supplies GST-exempt under Notifi...
Drawings/designs supply and erection supervision fees from German contractor: designs non-taxable; supervision taxed as FTS/PE depending on six-month ...
Imported analyser diagnostic cartridges treated as accessories with analyser system, not standalone diagnostic reagents; extended limitation and penal...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7661 to 7680 of 96363 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.