Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.