Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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.