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 ...
Time Limitation - validity of orders passed by the 1st respondent u/s 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - The High Court observed that, the proceedings were initiated by notice dated 29/9/2023 and order u/s 73(9) was passed on 3/11/2023. - It is apparent therefore that the thirty-day period that is envisaged from the date of the notice under Section 73(2) is for the purpose of enabling an assessee to pay tax along with interest payable under Section 50 so as to avoid the payment of penalty. This opportunity was not extended to the appellant herein and virtually amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure envisaged under the Statute. - The HC held that, since the terminal for passing the order under Section 73(9) expired on 31/12/2023 the said defect cannot now be cured since any fresh order passed under Section 73(9) would be beyond 31/12/2023. - The order quashed.
Time Limitation - validity of orders passed by the 1st respondent u/s 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - The High Court observed that, the proceedings were initiated by notice dated 29/9/2023 and order u/s 73(9) was passed on 3/11/2023. - It is apparent therefore that the thirty-day period that is envisaged from the date of the notice under Section 73(2) is for the purpose of enabling an assessee to pay tax along with interest payable under Section 50 so as to avoid the payment of penalty. This opportunity was not extended to the appellant herein and virtually amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure envisaged under the Statute. - The HC held that, since the terminal for passing the order under Section 73(9) expired on 31/12/2023 the said defect cannot now be cured since any fresh order passed under Section 73(9) would be beyond 31/12/2023. - The order quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.