Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA require fair market value to be determined afresh each time unquoted equity shares are issued, so a valuation report from a prior year cannot automatically justify a later premium. A joint venture agreement may govern subscription terms between parties, but it cannot displace the statutory valuation requirement for income computation. On the facts, the assessee had not obtained a fresh DCF valuation for the year under appeal, and the AO had not secured an independent valuation. The earlier accepted report could not be rejected on the basis adopted by the AO, but the premium had to be examined again on a fresh valuation basis. The matter was remanded to the AO for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA require fair market value to be determined afresh each time unquoted equity shares are issued, so a valuation report from a prior year cannot automatically justify a later premium. A joint venture agreement may govern subscription terms between parties, but it cannot displace the statutory valuation requirement for income computation. On the facts, the assessee had not obtained a fresh DCF valuation for the year under appeal, and the AO had not secured an independent valuation. The earlier accepted report could not be rejected on the basis adopted by the AO, but the premium had to be examined again on a fresh valuation basis. The matter was remanded to the AO for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
