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 criminal proceedings and cognizance orders against the petitioners for offenses u/ss 276B and 278B of the Income Tax Act. The TDS amount in question, which was the subject matter of the economic offense cases and C.O. Case, had already been deposited belatedly with interest to the Income Tax Department. The court held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, given the deposit of the TDS amount and the amendment made to Section 276B in the Finance Act, 2024, allowing such delayed deposits. Consequently, the cognizance orders passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offenses, against the petitioners were quashed.
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings and cognizance orders against the petitioners for offenses u/ss 276B and 278B of the Income Tax Act. The TDS amount in question, which was the subject matter of the economic offense cases and C.O. Case, had already been deposited belatedly with interest to the Income Tax Department. The court held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, given the deposit of the TDS amount and the amendment made to Section 276B in the Finance Act, 2024, allowing such delayed deposits. Consequently, the cognizance orders passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offenses, against the petitioners were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
