Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
Fraud classification show-cause notices founded on inconclusive forensic audit material cannot sustain action, permitting fresh proceedings on conclus...
Section 260-A permits a High Court appeal only where a substantial question of law arises; it does not allow reappreciation of evidence or replacement of concurrent factual findings. Concurrent findings that road and infrastructure works qualified the assessee as a developer eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4) were based on the record, with no perversity or erroneous legal test shown. Reliance on a previously confirmed Tribunal order and dismissal of a similar appeal for another assessment year did not create a substantial question of law. The Department's appeal was dismissed.
Section 260-A permits a High Court appeal only where a substantial question of law arises; it does not allow reappreciation of evidence or replacement of concurrent factual findings. Concurrent findings that road and infrastructure works qualified the assessee as a developer eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4) were based on the record, with no perversity or erroneous legal test shown. Reliance on a previously confirmed Tribunal order and dismissal of a similar appeal for another assessment year did not create a substantial question of law. The Department's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4879 
