Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Section 251(1) enhancement power was confined to matters or sources of income considered by the Assessing Officer; the CIT(A) could not introduce a fresh issue by reducing work-in-progress on a point never examined in assessment, so the enhancement was invalid and reversed. Receipts under the joint development arrangement were treated as security deposits and business receipts, not loans or advances, and deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) could be taxed only in the hands of a shareholder; as the assessee was neither a registered nor beneficial shareholder, the addition was deleted. For the joint development agreement, the asset was stock-in-trade and income had to be measured by the consideration actually receivable under the arrangement, not by stamp duty value of the entire land parcel, so the protective addition for alleged extra consideration was affirmed as deleted.
Section 251(1) enhancement power was confined to matters or sources of income considered by the Assessing Officer; the CIT(A) could not introduce a fresh issue by reducing work-in-progress on a point never examined in assessment, so the enhancement was invalid and reversed. Receipts under the joint development arrangement were treated as security deposits and business receipts, not loans or advances, and deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) could be taxed only in the hands of a shareholder; as the assessee was neither a registered nor beneficial shareholder, the addition was deleted. For the joint development agreement, the asset was stock-in-trade and income had to be measured by the consideration actually receivable under the arrangement, not by stamp duty value of the entire land parcel, so the protective addition for alleged extra consideration was affirmed as deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
