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...
Rule 27 permits a respondent to support the appellate order on an additional ground, and the alleged allotment breach could not justify disallowance in Assessment Year 2011-12 because the Revenue's material related to a later year. On the merits, the Revenue failed to prove breach of the beneficial housing-project deduction condition under section 80IB(10)(f): it relied mainly on a third-party statement, produced no reliable documentary evidence that the flats were really allotted to one person through nominees, and was denied effective cross-examination. The Tribunal treated the statutory condition as requiring cogent proof and sustained deletion of the disallowance; the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 was rejected on the same reasoning.
Rule 27 permits a respondent to support the appellate order on an additional ground, and the alleged allotment breach could not justify disallowance in Assessment Year 2011-12 because the Revenue's material related to a later year. On the merits, the Revenue failed to prove breach of the beneficial housing-project deduction condition under section 80IB(10)(f): it relied mainly on a third-party statement, produced no reliable documentary evidence that the flats were really allotted to one person through nominees, and was denied effective cross-examination. The Tribunal treated the statutory condition as requiring cogent proof and sustained deletion of the disallowance; the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 was rejected on the same reasoning.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
