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...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court quashed the order rejecting the issuance of Form 5 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) and directed the respondent to issue Form 5 to the petitioner within twelve weeks. The petitioner had paid the entire amount except Rs. 1,533/- within the specified time period on or before 30th September, 2021. The delay of twelve days in payment of Rs. 1,533/- was considered unintentional and supported by a justifiable reason. The petitioner had also paid the difference of the amount payable after 30th September, 2021. The Court held that permitting the petitioner the benefit of the Scheme would not amount to extending or modifying the Scheme, which is the prerogative of the Government.
The High Court quashed the order rejecting the issuance of Form 5 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) and directed the respondent to issue Form 5 to the petitioner within twelve weeks. The petitioner had paid the entire amount except Rs. 1,533/- within the specified time period on or before 30th September, 2021. The delay of twelve days in payment of Rs. 1,533/- was considered unintentional and supported by a justifiable reason. The petitioner had also paid the difference of the amount payable after 30th September, 2021. The Court held that permitting the petitioner the benefit of the Scheme would not amount to extending or modifying the Scheme, which is the prerogative of the Government.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
