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" ?
Grant-in-aid from CCRAS was treated as consideration because the payments were linked to approved proposals, deliverables, reporting, audits and specified research work, and the subsidy exclusion for Government grants did not extend by implication. The appellant and CCRAS were separate legal persons, so the research work constituted supply between distinct taxable persons in the course of business, and the appellant was not a pure agent. Exemption under Entries 3 and 3A was denied because the services were research and documentation for a central research body, not functions entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality bodies. The work was classified as taxable research and development services under Heading 9981, and the appeal was rejected.
Grant-in-aid from CCRAS was treated as consideration because the payments were linked to approved proposals, deliverables, reporting, audits and specified research work, and the subsidy exclusion for Government grants did not extend by implication. The appellant and CCRAS were separate legal persons, so the research work constituted supply between distinct taxable persons in the course of business, and the appellant was not a pure agent. Exemption under Entries 3 and 3A was denied because the services were research and documentation for a central research body, not functions entrusted to Panchayat or Municipality bodies. The work was classified as taxable research and development services under Heading 9981, and the appeal was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
