Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
