Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Revenue records prevailed over guideline-value entries in determining whether the land was agricultural, and clear evidence of agricultural classification and activity required exclusion of the land from the definition of capital asset for capital gains tax. The HC held that the Tribunal and first appellate authority misread the material, ignored revenue records, sale deeds, photographs and agricultural income evidence, and wrongly treated the land as non-agricultural; that finding was reversed in favour of the assessee. The Court also held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to revisit the assessments and entertain appeals from both sides, so its competence was upheld even though its merits reasoning was disapproved.
Revenue records prevailed over guideline-value entries in determining whether the land was agricultural, and clear evidence of agricultural classification and activity required exclusion of the land from the definition of capital asset for capital gains tax. The HC held that the Tribunal and first appellate authority misread the material, ignored revenue records, sale deeds, photographs and agricultural income evidence, and wrongly treated the land as non-agricultural; that finding was reversed in favour of the assessee. The Court also held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to revisit the assessments and entertain appeals from both sides, so its competence was upheld even though its merits reasoning was disapproved.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
