Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
