Disciplinary proportionality requires penalties for Authorised Representative misconduct to match proven harm, leading to reconsideration of registrat...
Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Page of 4921
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4921 
