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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Disciplinary proceeding against the govt officer - Punishment of withholding of 10% of monthly pension for a period of three years - misconduct - failure to maintain absolute integrity - The Bombay High Court in 2024 quashed the punishment order dated April 26, 2013, against a petitioner, which had imposed a withholding of 10% of monthly pension for three years, as well as the judgment dated January 23, 2020, by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court found that the punishment was not sustainable due to the absence of proof of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss to the government, and that there was no violation of the specified Conduct Rules under which the petitioner was charged.
Disciplinary proceeding against the govt officer - Punishment of withholding of 10% of monthly pension for a period of three years - misconduct - failure to maintain absolute integrity - The Bombay High Court in 2024 quashed the punishment order dated April 26, 2013, against a petitioner, which had imposed a withholding of 10% of monthly pension for three years, as well as the judgment dated January 23, 2020, by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court found that the punishment was not sustainable due to the absence of proof of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss to the government, and that there was no violation of the specified Conduct Rules under which the petitioner was charged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
