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...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Deduction under section 54 was denied because a long-term lease of a plinth or plot for a proposed villa did not amount to purchase of a residential house. The assessee also failed to prove that construction had commenced or that substantial investment in the residential house was made within the statutory period after transfer of the original asset. The Tribunal rejected the contention that later restraint concerning Aamby Valley explained the non-completion, since the section 54 time limit and the contractual timelines had already expired. On these facts, there was no substantive compliance with section 54(1), and the claim was disallowed; the issue of investment after the due date under section 139(1) became infructuous.
Deduction under section 54 was denied because a long-term lease of a plinth or plot for a proposed villa did not amount to purchase of a residential house. The assessee also failed to prove that construction had commenced or that substantial investment in the residential house was made within the statutory period after transfer of the original asset. The Tribunal rejected the contention that later restraint concerning Aamby Valley explained the non-completion, since the section 54 time limit and the contractual timelines had already expired. On these facts, there was no substantive compliance with section 54(1), and the claim was disallowed; the issue of investment after the due date under section 139(1) became infructuous.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
