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...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
