Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4814 
Join Channel 
