Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for material and plot development expenses totaling Rs. 4,51,00,181, finding that common expenditure was legitimately borne by RNTC under development agreement, while assessee incurred specific plot development costs recoverable at Rs. 100 per sq. meter from plot owners. However, ITAT reversed CIT(A) regarding commission/brokerage expense disallowance, ruling that since land ownership vested with RNTC under development agreement, commission for individual plot sales should be borne by RNTC, not assessee. AO's action disallowing commission expense and reducing capitalized closing stock was upheld. Revenue's appeal partially allowed.
ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for material and plot development expenses totaling Rs. 4,51,00,181, finding that common expenditure was legitimately borne by RNTC under development agreement, while assessee incurred specific plot development costs recoverable at Rs. 100 per sq. meter from plot owners. However, ITAT reversed CIT(A) regarding commission/brokerage expense disallowance, ruling that since land ownership vested with RNTC under development agreement, commission for individual plot sales should be borne by RNTC, not assessee. AO's action disallowing commission expense and reducing capitalized closing stock was upheld. Revenue's appeal partially allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
