Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
