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...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Validity of Reassessment proceedings - notice issued in the course of the reassessment proceedings not served on the assessee - The High Court examined the evidence presented, including copies of notices and postal tracking reports. It noted that all notices appeared to have been dispatched to the assessee but returned to the sender, the assessing officer. Despite this, the officer claimed the notices were served. The Court held that the mere dispatch of the assessment order to the same address did not prove due service of preceding notices. - Consequently, it set aside the assessment order and directed the petitioner to file detailed objections within a specified timeframe. The Court also allowed the assessing authority to reevaluate the issue of the firm's existence independently.
Validity of Reassessment proceedings - notice issued in the course of the reassessment proceedings not served on the assessee - The High Court examined the evidence presented, including copies of notices and postal tracking reports. It noted that all notices appeared to have been dispatched to the assessee but returned to the sender, the assessing officer. Despite this, the officer claimed the notices were served. The Court held that the mere dispatch of the assessment order to the same address did not prove due service of preceding notices. - Consequently, it set aside the assessment order and directed the petitioner to file detailed objections within a specified timeframe. The Court also allowed the assessing authority to reevaluate the issue of the firm's existence independently.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
