Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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.