Condonation of Delay: Tribunal directed condonation where rectification proceedings were pursued, ordering merits adjudication after opportunity to be...
Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
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.