Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal held that flats purchased with consideration paid by the appellant, but registered in the names of others who did not pay for them, fell within the statutory definition of benami transaction. It further held that the amended definition under Section 2(9)(A) covered property still held in benamidars' names after the 2016 amendment, so the challenge based on pre-amendment origin failed. The objection that provisional attachment concerned non-existent property was also rejected because allotment letters were issued, consideration was paid, and registered agreements existed. Provisional attachment and its confirmation were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Appellate Tribunal held that flats purchased with consideration paid by the appellant, but registered in the names of others who did not pay for them, fell within the statutory definition of benami transaction. It further held that the amended definition under Section 2(9)(A) covered property still held in benamidars' names after the 2016 amendment, so the challenge based on pre-amendment origin failed. The objection that provisional attachment concerned non-existent property was also rejected because allotment letters were issued, consideration was paid, and registered agreements existed. Provisional attachment and its confirmation were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.