Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The assessee, a contractor or developer, was initially denied deduction u/s 80IA(4) by the Assessing Officer, citing the retrospective amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2009, which required the assessee to be the owner of the property as a developer. However, the ITAT held that the assessee qualified as a developer within the meaning of Section 80-IA and was eligible for the deduction under Sub-section (4). The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal, stating that the assessee was awarded a contract for full-fledged development of a new infrastructure facility at an airport, involving financial and entrepreneurial risk, thus qualifying as a developer eligible for the deduction.
The assessee, a contractor or developer, was initially denied deduction u/s 80IA(4) by the Assessing Officer, citing the retrospective amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2009, which required the assessee to be the owner of the property as a developer. However, the ITAT held that the assessee qualified as a developer within the meaning of Section 80-IA and was eligible for the deduction under Sub-section (4). The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal, stating that the assessee was awarded a contract for full-fledged development of a new infrastructure facility at an airport, involving financial and entrepreneurial risk, thus qualifying as a developer eligible for the deduction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
