Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
