Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
681 to 700 of 95999 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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
