Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The High Court quashed the impugned notice u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and consequential notice u/s 148, holding that the interest income derived from Non-convertible Debentures floated by Genpact India Private Limited was appropriately offered to tax u/s 194LD. The Court observed a manifest variation between the initial reasons recorded for reassessment and the final order disposing of objections. Furthermore, even if the payment were assumed to be dividend, the liability to pay tax would be on the company declaring or paying the dividend, not the recipient. The Court also noted that issues emanating from the CIT(IT)'s order u/s 263 are pending adjudication in another appeal, which cannot sustain the reassessment proceedings impugned herein.
The High Court quashed the impugned notice u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d), and consequential notice u/s 148, holding that the interest income derived from Non-convertible Debentures floated by Genpact India Private Limited was appropriately offered to tax u/s 194LD. The Court observed a manifest variation between the initial reasons recorded for reassessment and the final order disposing of objections. Furthermore, even if the payment were assumed to be dividend, the liability to pay tax would be on the company declaring or paying the dividend, not the recipient. The Court also noted that issues emanating from the CIT(IT)'s order u/s 263 are pending adjudication in another appeal, which cannot sustain the reassessment proceedings impugned herein.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
