Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Enhancement of assessment - Power of CIT(A) u/s 251(2) - addition u/s 56(2)(vii) - The appellant had received Rs. 25,00,000 as a security deposit from a developer, the amount was subsequently repaid - Providing / granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present their case against the enhancement - The Tribunal deemed this non-compliance as an irregularity rather than an illegality. However, the Tribunal decided to review the addition made under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. It was determined that since the deposit received by the appellant was not without consideration, being related to a development agreement, the addition was not sustainable. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned additions were directed to be deleted.
Enhancement of assessment - Power of CIT(A) u/s 251(2) - addition u/s 56(2)(vii) - The appellant had received Rs. 25,00,000 as a security deposit from a developer, the amount was subsequently repaid - Providing / granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present their case against the enhancement - The Tribunal deemed this non-compliance as an irregularity rather than an illegality. However, the Tribunal decided to review the addition made under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. It was determined that since the deposit received by the appellant was not without consideration, being related to a development agreement, the addition was not sustainable. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned additions were directed to be deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
