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, considering that the petitioner's certain pleas were not taken into account while issuing the notice u/s 74(1) and that the limitation for filing an appeal had been lost, directed that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the demanded amount of Rs. 73,87,225.92, after adjusting any amount already paid within four weeks, the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 shall stand set aside. The respondent would then afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order, upholding the principles of natural justice.
The High Court, considering that the petitioner's certain pleas were not taken into account while issuing the notice u/s 74(1) and that the limitation for filing an appeal had been lost, directed that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the demanded amount of Rs. 73,87,225.92, after adjusting any amount already paid within four weeks, the impugned order dated 24.07.2023 shall stand set aside. The respondent would then afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order, upholding the principles of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.