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 appellant was required to deposit a total fee of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- CGST and Rs. 10,000/- HGST) as a statutory precondition for filing an appeal against the order of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana. However, the appellant paid only Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- CGST and Rs. 5000/- HGST), which is not the required fee. Consequently, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable in terms of Section 100(3) of the GST law for want of deposition of the requisite fee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The appellant was required to deposit a total fee of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- CGST and Rs. 10,000/- HGST) as a statutory precondition for filing an appeal against the order of the Authority for Advance Ruling, Haryana. However, the appellant paid only Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5000/- CGST and Rs. 5000/- HGST), which is not the required fee. Consequently, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling held that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable in terms of Section 100(3) of the GST law for want of deposition of the requisite fee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
