Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Capital gain arising on transfer of land - STCG arising out of the transfer of non-agricultural land - real owner - The appellant asserts that the land was purchased on behalf of the company, as evidenced by a development agreement executed between the appellant and the company. However, the Tribunal finds no explicit indication in the documents that the appellant was authorized by the company to purchase the land on its behalf. The absence of a memorandum of understanding or any explicit authorization leads the Tribunal to conclude that the land was purchased by the appellant individually, not on behalf of the company.
Capital gain arising on transfer of land - STCG arising out of the transfer of non-agricultural land - real owner - The appellant asserts that the land was purchased on behalf of the company, as evidenced by a development agreement executed between the appellant and the company. However, the Tribunal finds no explicit indication in the documents that the appellant was authorized by the company to purchase the land on its behalf. The absence of a memorandum of understanding or any explicit authorization leads the Tribunal to conclude that the land was purchased by the appellant individually, not on behalf of the company.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.