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 ...
Respondents made a concession before the Regulatory Authority to accept interest only on amounts paid after RERA implementation. However, before the Appellate Authority, they insisted no such concession was made. Instead of filing an application with the Regulatory Authority to correct the erroneous recording of the concession, Respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal entertained the appeal without any pleading from Respondents regarding the erroneous recording of the concession. It erroneously concluded that no concession was made based on absence of certain points in the Regulatory Authority's order. The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the appeal without Respondents first seeking clarification from the Regulatory Authority regarding the concession. It also erred by entertaining an oral plea about non-concession without any pleading in the appeal memo. The Appellate Tribunal's order was set aside as indefensible.
Respondents made a concession before the Regulatory Authority to accept interest only on amounts paid after RERA implementation. However, before the Appellate Authority, they insisted no such concession was made. Instead of filing an application with the Regulatory Authority to correct the erroneous recording of the concession, Respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal entertained the appeal without any pleading from Respondents regarding the erroneous recording of the concession. It erroneously concluded that no concession was made based on absence of certain points in the Regulatory Authority's order. The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the appeal without Respondents first seeking clarification from the Regulatory Authority regarding the concession. It also erred by entertaining an oral plea about non-concession without any pleading in the appeal memo. The Appellate Tribunal's order was set aside as indefensible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
