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...
A Government company wholly controlled by the State Government through the Governor, with power to appoint and remove directors, was treated as eligible for exemption under section 10(26B) on the basis of its incorporation documents and memorandum and articles of association. The Tribunal followed the co-ordinate bench view in the assessee's own case and accepted that the company was established by the State, so its income was exempt. As the Revenue did not dispute the foundational facts and only raised res judicata, the Tribunal found no error in deleting the additions as non-taxable and upheld the exemption.
A Government company wholly controlled by the State Government through the Governor, with power to appoint and remove directors, was treated as eligible for exemption under section 10(26B) on the basis of its incorporation documents and memorandum and articles of association. The Tribunal followed the co-ordinate bench view in the assessee's own case and accepted that the company was established by the State, so its income was exempt. As the Revenue did not dispute the foundational facts and only raised res judicata, the Tribunal found no error in deleting the additions as non-taxable and upheld the exemption.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
