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 High Court disposed of the writ petition, modifying the requirement to deposit only 10% of the remaining disputed tax amount for the impugned order to remain stayed. This decision was based on a Central revenue notification dated 16th August, 2024, reducing the deposit to 10%, and a corresponding State revenue notification dated 29th October, 2024. The petitioner's submission regarding the reduced deposit requirement of 10% for the first appellate order to remain stayed was accepted by the High Court.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition, modifying the requirement to deposit only 10% of the remaining disputed tax amount for the impugned order to remain stayed. This decision was based on a Central revenue notification dated 16th August, 2024, reducing the deposit to 10%, and a corresponding State revenue notification dated 29th October, 2024. The petitioner's submission regarding the reduced deposit requirement of 10% for the first appellate order to remain stayed was accepted by the High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.