Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
