Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
