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...
The High Court examined the challenge to the assessment and demand orders, validity of the show cause notice (SCN), discrepancy in the assessment amount compared to the proposal, and violation of Section 75(7) of the GST Act. The court held that the SCN covered the proposal for assessing tax, interest, and penalty. The assessment amount matched the total proposal under nine heads mentioned in the SCN and final order. The court rejected the contention of violating Section 75(7). Finding no reason to interfere with the writ court's order, the High Court affirmed it with a slight modification, requiring payment of 7.5% of the disputed tax instead of 10% within three months. Upon such payment, the assessing authority shall proceed with re-assessment, provide an opportunity of being heard, and make a final decision on merits and in accordance with the law. Non-compliance with the modified condition will result in dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court examined the challenge to the assessment and demand orders, validity of the show cause notice (SCN), discrepancy in the assessment amount compared to the proposal, and violation of Section 75(7) of the GST Act. The court held that the SCN covered the proposal for assessing tax, interest, and penalty. The assessment amount matched the total proposal under nine heads mentioned in the SCN and final order. The court rejected the contention of violating Section 75(7). Finding no reason to interfere with the writ court's order, the High Court affirmed it with a slight modification, requiring payment of 7.5% of the disputed tax instead of 10% within three months. Upon such payment, the assessing authority shall proceed with re-assessment, provide an opportunity of being heard, and make a final decision on merits and in accordance with the law. Non-compliance with the modified condition will result in dismissal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
