Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
Unsubstantiated exempt agricultural income claim sustains concealment penalty after disclosure only on departmental detection and no bona fide evidenc...
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 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
