Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - family transaction - assessee has submitted that the assessee’s husband was a power of attorney holder of the property and could not convey the property as an agent and therefore, to avoid future litigation and to secure better title over the property, a sale deed in favour of the assessee, being the wife was executed - if we go by the narrations in the Sale deed, then the assessee’s claim that the impugned transaction is a “family transaction” where no consideration has passed is liable to be rejected since the actual vendor of the impugned property is not the Husband of appellant (POA holder) - AT
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - family transaction - assessee has submitted that the assessee’s husband was a power of attorney holder of the property and could not convey the property as an agent and therefore, to avoid future litigation and to secure better title over the property, a sale deed in favour of the assessee, being the wife was executed - if we go by the narrations in the Sale deed, then the assessee’s claim that the impugned transaction is a “family transaction” where no consideration has passed is liable to be rejected since the actual vendor of the impugned property is not the Husband of appellant (POA holder) - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
