Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Page of 4921
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 98414 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.