Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
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.