Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) for an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before March 31 by a local authority. The scope of the definition of 'built-up area' was examined. The DVO's report showing violation related to two row houses having an area more than 1500 sq.ft. was not considered. It was held that for projects approved prior to April 1, 2005, the assessee could legitimately claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) based on the plans approved by the Planning Authority, as the concept of built-up area, including inner measurement, projections, balconies, and wall thickness, but excluding common areas, was not applicable. Applying such parameters retrospectively would lead to absurd results. The expression 'built-up area' introduced from April 1, 2005, cannot be applied retrospectively, and the Tribunal was justified in excluding the balcony area for the period up to April 1, 2005. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) for an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before March 31 by a local authority. The scope of the definition of 'built-up area' was examined. The DVO's report showing violation related to two row houses having an area more than 1500 sq.ft. was not considered. It was held that for projects approved prior to April 1, 2005, the assessee could legitimately claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) based on the plans approved by the Planning Authority, as the concept of built-up area, including inner measurement, projections, balconies, and wall thickness, but excluding common areas, was not applicable. Applying such parameters retrospectively would lead to absurd results. The expression 'built-up area' introduced from April 1, 2005, cannot be applied retrospectively, and the Tribunal was justified in excluding the balcony area for the period up to April 1, 2005. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
