Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 54F relief was held available where sale consideration was invested in a residential house before filing the return under section 139(4), so deposit in the capital gains account was not required. The Tribunal also held that an undivided one-third share in a single contiguous residential property did not amount to ownership of two separate houses, so the assessee was not disentitled on that ground. It further ruled that section 54F must be applied asset-wise: shares of each company were separate capital assets, and long-term capital loss could not be used to deny exemption on gains from other assets.
Section 54F relief was held available where sale consideration was invested in a residential house before filing the return under section 139(4), so deposit in the capital gains account was not required. The Tribunal also held that an undivided one-third share in a single contiguous residential property did not amount to ownership of two separate houses, so the assessee was not disentitled on that ground. It further ruled that section 54F must be applied asset-wise: shares of each company were separate capital assets, and long-term capital loss could not be used to deny exemption on gains from other assets.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.