Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Leave encashment exemption under section 10(10AA)(ii) was held to remain capped at Rs. 3 lakh for the year under consideration, because the enhanced limit notified later operated only prospectively from 01.04.2023. The ITAT accepted that the limit should have been revised earlier, but followed the Kerala High Court in Ramesan P. A. and held that retrospective revision could not be directed since issuance of the notification was a matter of executive policy. The Delhi High Court notice order relied on by the assessee in Kamal Kumar Kalia was not treated as binding. The appeal was dismissed and the section 143(1) adjustment sustained.
Leave encashment exemption under section 10(10AA)(ii) was held to remain capped at Rs. 3 lakh for the year under consideration, because the enhanced limit notified later operated only prospectively from 01.04.2023. The ITAT accepted that the limit should have been revised earlier, but followed the Kerala High Court in Ramesan P. A. and held that retrospective revision could not be directed since issuance of the notification was a matter of executive policy. The Delhi High Court notice order relied on by the assessee in Kamal Kumar Kalia was not treated as binding. The appeal was dismissed and the section 143(1) adjustment sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
