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...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
