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 set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent u/s 73 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 2017, imposing a liability of Rs. 10.72 lakhs towards tax, interest, and penalty on the petitioner due to a discrepancy between Forms GSTR 3B and GSTR 1. The petitioner claimed a violation of natural justice as they were unaware of the proceedings initiated by the respondent, with communication sent only through the portal. The court found sufficient materials to substantiate the petitioner's defense that there was no mismatch between the outward supplies turnover declared in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. Consistent with a previous case, the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the total demand within four weeks. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The court set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent u/s 73 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 2017, imposing a liability of Rs. 10.72 lakhs towards tax, interest, and penalty on the petitioner due to a discrepancy between Forms GSTR 3B and GSTR 1. The petitioner claimed a violation of natural justice as they were unaware of the proceedings initiated by the respondent, with communication sent only through the portal. The court found sufficient materials to substantiate the petitioner's defense that there was no mismatch between the outward supplies turnover declared in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. Consistent with a previous case, the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the total demand within four weeks. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
