Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4) was denied on the grounds that the assessee is not a developer of any infrastructure project but a simple works contractor executing civil construction work for various government and semi-government departments. The assessee argued that the nature of the agreement entered into by the appellant for the assessment year in question may differ from the previous year, and a conclusion cannot be drawn solely based on the agreement for the previous year. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, stating that the nature of works executed by the assessee can only be ascertained by examining the agreement entered into with the principals, as the terms and conditions specified therein determine whether the assessee is a developer of an infrastructure project or a simple works contractor. Since the Assessing Officer did not examine the relevant agreements, the matter was remanded back for fresh examination to determine the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4) based on the agreements and the nature of works executed.
The assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4) was denied on the grounds that the assessee is not a developer of any infrastructure project but a simple works contractor executing civil construction work for various government and semi-government departments. The assessee argued that the nature of the agreement entered into by the appellant for the assessment year in question may differ from the previous year, and a conclusion cannot be drawn solely based on the agreement for the previous year. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, stating that the nature of works executed by the assessee can only be ascertained by examining the agreement entered into with the principals, as the terms and conditions specified therein determine whether the assessee is a developer of an infrastructure project or a simple works contractor. Since the Assessing Officer did not examine the relevant agreements, the matter was remanded back for fresh examination to determine the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4) based on the agreements and the nature of works executed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
