Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Where an assessee permits its bank account and charitable status to be used for routing funds and claims exemption under sections 11 and 12 on that basis, it cannot avoid taxability by describing itself as a mere conduit. The Tribunal found that the assessee was a party to the arrangement by which donations were routed through its account and shown as application for educational purposes, while the funds were effectively taken back by the beneficiary group. The reliance on an earlier pass-through case was held distinguishable. The addition was upheld in the assessee's hands, the plea that only the ultimate beneficiary could be taxed was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.
Where an assessee permits its bank account and charitable status to be used for routing funds and claims exemption under sections 11 and 12 on that basis, it cannot avoid taxability by describing itself as a mere conduit. The Tribunal found that the assessee was a party to the arrangement by which donations were routed through its account and shown as application for educational purposes, while the funds were effectively taken back by the beneficiary group. The reliance on an earlier pass-through case was held distinguishable. The addition was upheld in the assessee's hands, the plea that only the ultimate beneficiary could be taxed was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.