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...
HC dismissed revenue's challenge and upheld the concurrent factual findings of CIT(A) and the ITAT that the assessee satisfied conditions for deduction under section 80IB(10), the approved plan showing each residential unit under 1,000 sq. ft. The court held the dispute over comparative sale rates and valuation (including terrace access) raised no question of law or substantial question of law, and that differences in sale prices vis-Ã -vis stamp rates did not permit an inference of cash transactions without further evidence. Consequently, there was no perversity warranting interference under section 260A of the IT Act, and the appellate and tribunal conclusions were sustained.
HC dismissed revenue's challenge and upheld the concurrent factual findings of CIT(A) and the ITAT that the assessee satisfied conditions for deduction under section 80IB(10), the approved plan showing each residential unit under 1,000 sq. ft. The court held the dispute over comparative sale rates and valuation (including terrace access) raised no question of law or substantial question of law, and that differences in sale prices vis-Ã -vis stamp rates did not permit an inference of cash transactions without further evidence. Consequently, there was no perversity warranting interference under section 260A of the IT Act, and the appellate and tribunal conclusions were sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.