Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 
