Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
A composite property used partly for residence and partly for commercial activity was treated as eligible for section 54 relief to the extent of the residential portion. The Tribunal held that the residential component could not be ignored merely because the sale agreement described the property as commercial, and directed apportionment of sale consideration relating to the residential floors before granting exemption. On the addition under section 56(2)(vii), it held that where the assessee disputed the stamp valuation, the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the DVO instead of directly taxing the difference. The valuation issue was remitted for fresh decision.
A composite property used partly for residence and partly for commercial activity was treated as eligible for section 54 relief to the extent of the residential portion. The Tribunal held that the residential component could not be ignored merely because the sale agreement described the property as commercial, and directed apportionment of sale consideration relating to the residential floors before granting exemption. On the addition under section 56(2)(vii), it held that where the assessee disputed the stamp valuation, the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the DVO instead of directly taxing the difference. The valuation issue was remitted for fresh decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.