The government notified an urban development authority for exemption under Section 10(46A). The benefit applies from AY 2025-26, subject to continued statutory status and prescribed objectives.
The Tribunal held that additions treating shooting location receipts as house property income were premature. Authorities were directed to re-examine the claim after considering all relevant documents.
The dispute examined whether satellite transponder charges paid to a foreign entity constituted royalty requiring tax deduction at source. The Tribunal held that such payments were not royalty under the India–UK DTAA, as there was no use of a secret process or transfer of rights. Consequently, no withholding tax obligation arose under section 195
The Tribunal held that rights received under a joint development agreement are not free but exchanged for land. Indexed cost must therefore be allowed while computing capital gains.
The Tribunal ruled that once additional evidence is admitted, the appellate authority must adjudicate it on merits. Absence of a speaking order required the matter to be remanded for fresh consideration.
The regulator has issued a Master Circular compiling all existing SSE-related directions in one document. Earlier circulars are rescinded, but past actions and obligations remain fully protected.
The Tribunal held that once sales are accepted, corresponding purchases cannot be treated as bogus. Disallowance based only on supplier non-compliance was held unsustainable.
The case examined whether tax authorities could deny working capital adjustment despite clear prior directions of the Tribunal. The ITAT held that such directions are binding and must be implemented in letter and spirit. Once the adjustment was granted, the assessee’s margin fell within the permissible arm’s length rang
The Tribunal noted that share application money in the first year requires proper enquiry before invoking Section 68. Additions were deleted as statutory conditions were satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the entire political donation could not be treated as bogus in the absence of incriminating evidence. To balance equities, only 10% of the alleged on-money was directed to be taxed on an estimated basis.
