Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
The dominant issue was whether the AO had jurisdiction under s.55A (as applicable to AY 2011-12) to refer the property to the Valuation Officer for determining fair market value for capital gains computation. The Tribunal held that s.55A can be invoked only when the AO forms a reasoned opinion that the assessee's claimed fair market value/cost of acquisition requires substitution based on the prescribed statutory parameters; a mere perception that the declared consideration was lower by more than 25% is not a permissible basis. Since the Act does not authorize disturbing sale consideration through s.55A on that ground, the reference was invalid and the assessee's appeal was allowed. - ITAT
The dominant issue was whether the AO had jurisdiction under s.55A (as applicable to AY 2011-12) to refer the property to the Valuation Officer for determining fair market value for capital gains computation. The Tribunal held that s.55A can be invoked only when the AO forms a reasoned opinion that the assessee's claimed fair market value/cost of acquisition requires substitution based on the prescribed statutory parameters; a mere perception that the declared consideration was lower by more than 25% is not a permissible basis. Since the Act does not authorize disturbing sale consideration through s.55A on that ground, the reference was invalid and the assessee's appeal was allowed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
