Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
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 
