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 ...
Non-compliance with the remand order of the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation - import of rough marble blocks - The Tribunal noted the appellant's submission regarding the communication of license applications to the authorities. It criticized the adjudicating authority for disregarding the altered factual situation highlighted in the remand order and for insisting on restoring the previously discarded order. The Tribunal deemed this defiance of appellate directions as invalidating the impugned order. - The Tribunal emphasized the authority of the DGFT in administering trade policy and issuing import licenses. It clarified that the date of issue of the license was not material to quantitative restrictions, and the relevance lay in its coverage of the impugned goods. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Non-compliance with the remand order of the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation - import of rough marble blocks - The Tribunal noted the appellant's submission regarding the communication of license applications to the authorities. It criticized the adjudicating authority for disregarding the altered factual situation highlighted in the remand order and for insisting on restoring the previously discarded order. The Tribunal deemed this defiance of appellate directions as invalidating the impugned order. - The Tribunal emphasized the authority of the DGFT in administering trade policy and issuing import licenses. It clarified that the date of issue of the license was not material to quantitative restrictions, and the relevance lay in its coverage of the impugned goods. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.