Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
401 to 420 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that the joint venture development agreement dated 21.12.2005 was not legally effective as against the assessee firm because the partnership deed post-dating that agreement vested legal status in the firm only from 29.11.2007; consequently the firm could not substantively include investments made prior to its constitution. The Court found the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving it acted as developer or produced requisite books, bills and vouchers, allowing the Assessing Officer's adverse inferences. Although planning approval/completion certificates in another entity's name do not per se defeat a s.80IB(10) claim, on the facts the Tribunal's acceptance was set aside, AO and CIT(A) orders restored, and the assessee held ineligible for deduction under s.80IB(10).
HC held that the joint venture development agreement dated 21.12.2005 was not legally effective as against the assessee firm because the partnership deed post-dating that agreement vested legal status in the firm only from 29.11.2007; consequently the firm could not substantively include investments made prior to its constitution. The Court found the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving it acted as developer or produced requisite books, bills and vouchers, allowing the Assessing Officer's adverse inferences. Although planning approval/completion certificates in another entity's name do not per se defeat a s.80IB(10) claim, on the facts the Tribunal's acceptance was set aside, AO and CIT(A) orders restored, and the assessee held ineligible for deduction under s.80IB(10).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
