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 ...
Validity of reopening proceedings - assessing authority not considering the reply-cum-objection filed by the petitioner - Period of limitation where monetary limit is below threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs - Joint Ownership of the property - The High Court quashed the entire enquiry proceeding, including the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148, deeming them beyond jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The court allowed the petitioner's application, emphasizing the procedural lapses and the incorrect application of the law by the tax department in this case.
Validity of reopening proceedings - assessing authority not considering the reply-cum-objection filed by the petitioner - Period of limitation where monetary limit is below threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs - Joint Ownership of the property - The High Court quashed the entire enquiry proceeding, including the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148, deeming them beyond jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The court allowed the petitioner's application, emphasizing the procedural lapses and the incorrect application of the law by the tax department in this case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.