Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 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.