Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
