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 petitioner challenged the impugned order and recovery notice issued by the respondent, claiming that the entire tax liability had been paid by reversing the wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC). The court held that the petitioner had already paid the entire tax demand and was only seeking an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice and personal hearing regarding the imposition of interest and penalty, which the petitioner claimed not to be liable for. Additionally, as per the decision taken in the 53rd GST Council Meeting, the time was extended until March 31, 2025. By applying the proposed amendment to Section 128(A) of the Act, the petitioner was not liable to pay any amount since sufficient ITC was available. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration regarding the assessment years 2017-2018. Consequently, the final notice dated 05.05.2023 was also set aside. The petition was disposed of by way of remand.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order and recovery notice issued by the respondent, claiming that the entire tax liability had been paid by reversing the wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC). The court held that the petitioner had already paid the entire tax demand and was only seeking an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice and personal hearing regarding the imposition of interest and penalty, which the petitioner claimed not to be liable for. Additionally, as per the decision taken in the 53rd GST Council Meeting, the time was extended until March 31, 2025. By applying the proposed amendment to Section 128(A) of the Act, the petitioner was not liable to pay any amount since sufficient ITC was available. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration regarding the assessment years 2017-2018. Consequently, the final notice dated 05.05.2023 was also set aside. The petition was disposed of by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
