Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Governmental Authority or not - The Board of the applicant i.e., “Sri Satya Sai Water Supply Project Board” consists of 9 Members, out of which 7 are officers /Employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh that qualifies for 77% of Government control falling short of the designated 90% as required by the Act. Even the cost of the operation and maintenance of the water supply scheme is contributed at a ratio of 70% by the State Government, while 30% of the cost is being borne by the applicant from the water charges collected from the users - In the instant case the applicant falls short of the qualifying mark of 90% in terms of equity or control. Hence the applicant does not fit in the category of “Governmental authority”.
Governmental Authority or not - The Board of the applicant i.e., “Sri Satya Sai Water Supply Project Board” consists of 9 Members, out of which 7 are officers /Employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh that qualifies for 77% of Government control falling short of the designated 90% as required by the Act. Even the cost of the operation and maintenance of the water supply scheme is contributed at a ratio of 70% by the State Government, while 30% of the cost is being borne by the applicant from the water charges collected from the users - In the instant case the applicant falls short of the qualifying mark of 90% in terms of equity or control. Hence the applicant does not fit in the category of “Governmental authority”.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
