Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6541 to 6560 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Deduction under section 80IA(4) was allowed because the railway signalling contracts involved design, drawings, procurement, fabrication, erection, installation and commissioning of infrastructure, followed by transfer to the Railway authorities. On that factual basis, the assessee was treated as a developer of an infrastructure facility and not as a mere works contractor, so the statutory conditions for the deduction were satisfied. The Tribunal also relied on binding earlier decisions in the assessee's own case and the jurisdictional High Court's affirmation on identical facts, holding that judicial consistency required the same relief to continue for the later year. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Deduction under section 80IA(4) was allowed because the railway signalling contracts involved design, drawings, procurement, fabrication, erection, installation and commissioning of infrastructure, followed by transfer to the Railway authorities. On that factual basis, the assessee was treated as a developer of an infrastructure facility and not as a mere works contractor, so the statutory conditions for the deduction were satisfied. The Tribunal also relied on binding earlier decisions in the assessee's own case and the jurisdictional High Court's affirmation on identical facts, holding that judicial consistency required the same relief to continue for the later year. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.