Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
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 4813 
Join Channel 
