Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
ITAT held that the alleged excess business loss arose from a clerical computation mismatch between book loss and loss computed under the Act, with no adverse scrutiny finding on the underlying claim, so the disallowance was deleted. It further accepted compensation paid to remove encroachment as a genuine cost of improvement for long-term capital gains computation, noting that the supporting agreements, payment records and verification material showed no serious discrepancy and the lower authorities had rejected the claim only on a general assertion of incomplete details. The indexed cost of improvement was therefore allowed and the appeal succeeded in full.
ITAT held that the alleged excess business loss arose from a clerical computation mismatch between book loss and loss computed under the Act, with no adverse scrutiny finding on the underlying claim, so the disallowance was deleted. It further accepted compensation paid to remove encroachment as a genuine cost of improvement for long-term capital gains computation, noting that the supporting agreements, payment records and verification material showed no serious discrepancy and the lower authorities had rejected the claim only on a general assertion of incomplete details. The indexed cost of improvement was therefore allowed and the appeal succeeded in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
