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 court found that the factual position was not in dispute. The authority made assessments for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on an intelligence report. However, for the period from October 2017 to March 2018, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order after providing three opportunities to the petitioner, who did not participate in the proceedings. The petitioner's request letter to the authority to consider the matter cannot be construed as participation. The petitioner should have informed the authority about the overlapping amount, which the authority could have considered. The court held that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Annexure-5 cannot be sustained in law and quashed it. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for rehearing and passing an appropriate order in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
The court found that the factual position was not in dispute. The authority made assessments for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on an intelligence report. However, for the period from October 2017 to March 2018, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order after providing three opportunities to the petitioner, who did not participate in the proceedings. The petitioner's request letter to the authority to consider the matter cannot be construed as participation. The petitioner should have informed the authority about the overlapping amount, which the authority could have considered. The court held that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Annexure-5 cannot be sustained in law and quashed it. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for rehearing and passing an appropriate order in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
