Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
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...
Land executed under a development agreement-cum-power of attorney was held assessable in the individual owners' hands because legal title vested in them and the documents were executed by them personally, while the asserted partition was treated only as an internal family arrangement and not proof of HUF ownership. The Tribunal further held that the agreement granted the developer only a limited licence to enter for construction, not effective transfer of possession for capital gains purposes, and no non-refundable consideration had been received. As the essential conditions for transfer were not satisfied in the relevant year, the capital gains addition was deleted.
Land executed under a development agreement-cum-power of attorney was held assessable in the individual owners' hands because legal title vested in them and the documents were executed by them personally, while the asserted partition was treated only as an internal family arrangement and not proof of HUF ownership. The Tribunal further held that the agreement granted the developer only a limited licence to enter for construction, not effective transfer of possession for capital gains purposes, and no non-refundable consideration had been received. As the essential conditions for transfer were not satisfied in the relevant year, the capital gains addition was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
