Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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 
