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...
ITAT held that Section 56(2)(x) cannot be applied retrospectively to a property transfer concluded by agreement in 2010; the tribunal accepted uncontested facts that substantial payments and possession occurred after the 2010 agreement and that subsequent registration in 2018 did not convert the pre-existing transaction into one chargeable under that provision. CIT(A)'s technical dismissal on advance-tax and belated return grounds did not address the substantive legal point. Applying the principle that a provision does not apply to agreements concluded prior to its enactment, the addition under Section 56(2)(x) was deleted and the appeal allowed for AY 2018-19.
ITAT held that Section 56(2)(x) cannot be applied retrospectively to a property transfer concluded by agreement in 2010; the tribunal accepted uncontested facts that substantial payments and possession occurred after the 2010 agreement and that subsequent registration in 2018 did not convert the pre-existing transaction into one chargeable under that provision. CIT(A)'s technical dismissal on advance-tax and belated return grounds did not address the substantive legal point. Applying the principle that a provision does not apply to agreements concluded prior to its enactment, the addition under Section 56(2)(x) was deleted and the appeal allowed for AY 2018-19.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.