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 case pertains to the validity of revision u/s 263 involving a substantial question of law or fact. There were discrepancies between the figures for current assets and current liabilities in the balance sheet and cash flow statement filed before the Assessing Officer for the financial year 2007-08. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, and the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case. However, the Tribunal remarked that the assessee was not interested in reconciling the discrepancies but attempting to use technical reasons to avoid responsibility, showcasing the triviality of the matter. The Supreme Court held that no case for interference was made out under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed the Special Leave Petition, condoning the delay. Any pending application was also disposed of.
The case pertains to the validity of revision u/s 263 involving a substantial question of law or fact. There were discrepancies between the figures for current assets and current liabilities in the balance sheet and cash flow statement filed before the Assessing Officer for the financial year 2007-08. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte, and the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case. However, the Tribunal remarked that the assessee was not interested in reconciling the discrepancies but attempting to use technical reasons to avoid responsibility, showcasing the triviality of the matter. The Supreme Court held that no case for interference was made out under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed the Special Leave Petition, condoning the delay. Any pending application was also disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
