PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Relief under s.54 was allowable despite a prior joint development arrangement and demolition, because the "transfer" was treated as occurring on execution of the later conveyances, and reinvestment in a residential house within the statutory window satisfied s.54(1); consequently, denial on the ground that the property had been demolished earlier was set aside. Deposit under the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme under s.54(2) was held inapplicable where the assessee had actually reinvested within time, and s.54 was not deniable merely because no "house property" income was returned, since the test is whether such income was assessable; relief under s.54 was granted. An alternate claim under s.54F was rejected for want of a properly pleaded claim and supporting facts; denial under s.54F was upheld - HC
Relief under s.54 was allowable despite a prior joint development arrangement and demolition, because the "transfer" was treated as occurring on execution of the later conveyances, and reinvestment in a residential house within the statutory window satisfied s.54(1); consequently, denial on the ground that the property had been demolished earlier was set aside. Deposit under the Capital Gains Accounts Scheme under s.54(2) was held inapplicable where the assessee had actually reinvested within time, and s.54 was not deniable merely because no "house property" income was returned, since the test is whether such income was assessable; relief under s.54 was granted. An alternate claim under s.54F was rejected for want of a properly pleaded claim and supporting facts; denial under s.54F was upheld - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.