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 ...
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973. The appellant argued lack of material and violation of natural justice, requesting cross-examination of Sudhir Kapadia. The order lacked evidence linking the appellant to the alleged contravention. Sudhir Kapadia's statement was the sole basis, but he retracted it. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine him. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence against the appellant and set aside the order, highlighting the need for proper evidence and fair procedure.
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973. The appellant argued lack of material and violation of natural justice, requesting cross-examination of Sudhir Kapadia. The order lacked evidence linking the appellant to the alleged contravention. Sudhir Kapadia's statement was the sole basis, but he retracted it. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine him. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence against the appellant and set aside the order, highlighting the need for proper evidence and fair procedure.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
