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" ?
The petitioner's tax liability for the period 01.04.2021 to 01.01.2022 was in question. The court examined whether the respondent entity qualified as a government entity and whether the works executed by the petitioner met any of the conditions for concessional tax rate under N/N. 24/2017. The court held that the works aimed to create infrastructure for entrepreneurs and manufacturing units, and the respondent entity, though a government entity, conducted business by developing industrial parks and recovering costs from entrepreneurs. Therefore, none of the conditions for concessional rate applied, and the tax assessment at 18% by the respondent for the said period was upheld. The arrangement between the petitioner and respondent entity was that the latter would pay the tax due to the petitioner, who would then remit it to the GST Department. The HC disposed of the writ petition, affirming the impugned order for the tax period 01.04.2021 to 30.11.2022.
The petitioner's tax liability for the period 01.04.2021 to 01.01.2022 was in question. The court examined whether the respondent entity qualified as a government entity and whether the works executed by the petitioner met any of the conditions for concessional tax rate under N/N. 24/2017. The court held that the works aimed to create infrastructure for entrepreneurs and manufacturing units, and the respondent entity, though a government entity, conducted business by developing industrial parks and recovering costs from entrepreneurs. Therefore, none of the conditions for concessional rate applied, and the tax assessment at 18% by the respondent for the said period was upheld. The arrangement between the petitioner and respondent entity was that the latter would pay the tax due to the petitioner, who would then remit it to the GST Department. The HC disposed of the writ petition, affirming the impugned order for the tax period 01.04.2021 to 30.11.2022.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
