Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
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 
