Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3481 to 3500 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The article concludes that a co-developer approved under the SEZ Act falls within the statutory meaning of "developer" for purposes of section 80-IAB, so the deduction was wrongly disallowed. It applies harmonious construction of the Income-tax Act and SEZ Act, rejects an artificial exclusion of co-developers, and holds that the assessee cannot be compelled to produce another taxpayer's returns; departmental verification suffices to prevent duplicate claims. Incentive provisions must be construed to advance their object where statutory conditions are met. Deduction is directed to be allowed subject to arithmetical verification of quantum and eligible period.
The article concludes that a co-developer approved under the SEZ Act falls within the statutory meaning of "developer" for purposes of section 80-IAB, so the deduction was wrongly disallowed. It applies harmonious construction of the Income-tax Act and SEZ Act, rejects an artificial exclusion of co-developers, and holds that the assessee cannot be compelled to produce another taxpayer's returns; departmental verification suffices to prevent duplicate claims. Incentive provisions must be construed to advance their object where statutory conditions are met. Deduction is directed to be allowed subject to arithmetical verification of quantum and eligible period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
