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 court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The petitioner relied on a notification dated 02.11.2023, which allowed appeals against orders u/ss 73 or 74 of the GST Act passed before 31.03.2023 to be filed by 31.01.2024 without being time-barred. However, the impugned order in the present case was passed on 20.07.2023, after the cut-off date mentioned in the notification. The court held that the notification did not aid the petitioner. Relying on the case of M/s Yadav Steels, the court observed that delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Act. Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.
The court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The petitioner relied on a notification dated 02.11.2023, which allowed appeals against orders u/ss 73 or 74 of the GST Act passed before 31.03.2023 to be filed by 31.01.2024 without being time-barred. However, the impugned order in the present case was passed on 20.07.2023, after the cut-off date mentioned in the notification. The court held that the notification did not aid the petitioner. Relying on the case of M/s Yadav Steels, the court observed that delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Act. Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
