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 ...
Levy of penalty - In the light of section 73(4) of Finance Act, 1994, which is the sole ground for denying recourse to section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, it is clear that the appellant herein has discharged tax liability in the manner contemplated by section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, upon intimation by the jurisdictional central excise officers. Consequently, in accordance with Explanation 2 therein, the assessee is not liable to any penalty under Finance Act, 1944. - AT
Levy of penalty - In the light of section 73(4) of Finance Act, 1994, which is the sole ground for denying recourse to section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, it is clear that the appellant herein has discharged tax liability in the manner contemplated by section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, upon intimation by the jurisdictional central excise officers. Consequently, in accordance with Explanation 2 therein, the assessee is not liable to any penalty under Finance Act, 1944. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
