Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
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 4809 
Join Channel 
