Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Binding coordinate Bench orders in the assessee's own case had already directed grant of approval for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) from assessment year 2018-19 onwards, and that earlier determination could not be displaced by a later administrative error. The Commissioner (Exemptions) had incorrectly recorded that sections 11 and 12 applied, but the Tribunal held that this mistake did not override the prior directions. The Revenue's argument that the application date confined relief to assessment year 2019-20 was rejected because judicial discipline required following the earlier view on entitlement for assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer was directed to give effect to exemption under section 10(23C)(vi).
Binding coordinate Bench orders in the assessee's own case had already directed grant of approval for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) from assessment year 2018-19 onwards, and that earlier determination could not be displaced by a later administrative error. The Commissioner (Exemptions) had incorrectly recorded that sections 11 and 12 applied, but the Tribunal held that this mistake did not override the prior directions. The Revenue's argument that the application date confined relief to assessment year 2019-20 was rejected because judicial discipline required following the earlier view on entitlement for assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer was directed to give effect to exemption under section 10(23C)(vi).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.