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 assessee raised an issue before the CIT(Appeals) which was not adjudicated. The assessee can raise this unadjudicated issue before the Tribunal by way of an application u/r 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as per judicial precedents. The issue relates to the legality of the penalty notice issued u/s 274 read with Sections 270A/271AAB, without specifying the relevant limb. Since the CIT(Appeals) did not decide this legal issue, and the assessee raised it for the first time before the Tribunal, the file needs to be remanded to the CIT(Appeals) to consider the preliminary legal issue regarding the validity of penalty proceedings initiated based on the vague notice.
The assessee raised an issue before the CIT(Appeals) which was not adjudicated. The assessee can raise this unadjudicated issue before the Tribunal by way of an application u/r 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963, as per judicial precedents. The issue relates to the legality of the penalty notice issued u/s 274 read with Sections 270A/271AAB, without specifying the relevant limb. Since the CIT(Appeals) did not decide this legal issue, and the assessee raised it for the first time before the Tribunal, the file needs to be remanded to the CIT(Appeals) to consider the preliminary legal issue regarding the validity of penalty proceedings initiated based on the vague notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.