Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claim on two grounds: most residential units exceeded 1500 square feet, and the assessee was a contractor, not a developer. The Tribunal held that mentioning 1500 sq ft in the sanction plan is not determinative of the actual area constructed, and if the extra area does not breach building bylaws, it is irrelevant for civil authorities. The assessee failed to prove the units were under 1500 sq ft and that it was a developer executing sale deeds for loan purposes. The Tribunal distinguished the cited cases as involving debatable additions, whereas here, the claim was based on incorrect facts of the assessee being a developer and units exceeding 1500 sq ft. Hence, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was rightly confirmed.
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claim on two grounds: most residential units exceeded 1500 square feet, and the assessee was a contractor, not a developer. The Tribunal held that mentioning 1500 sq ft in the sanction plan is not determinative of the actual area constructed, and if the extra area does not breach building bylaws, it is irrelevant for civil authorities. The assessee failed to prove the units were under 1500 sq ft and that it was a developer executing sale deeds for loan purposes. The Tribunal distinguished the cited cases as involving debatable additions, whereas here, the claim was based on incorrect facts of the assessee being a developer and units exceeding 1500 sq ft. Hence, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was rightly confirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
