Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
