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 quashed the show cause notices (SCNs) and any final orders passed in the pending adjudication proceedings initiated under the Customs Act, 1962, Finance Act, 1994. The court held that the inordinate delay by the respondents in concluding the adjudication proceedings for decades constituted a sufficient ground to annul those proceedings. Despite legislative provisions enabling the proper officers to seek extensions and conclude pending proceedings, the respondents failed to take proactive and effective steps to conclude proceedings initiated as far back as 2006. The court emphasized that matters involving financial liabilities or penal consequences cannot be kept pending for years, and the flexibility provided by the statute cannot be construed as sanctioning lethargy or indolence. The respondents were obligated to prove that it was impracticable to proceed or they were constrained by factors beyond their control. The practice of mechanically placing matters in the call book and retrieving them without proper application of mind was not acceptable.
The High Court quashed the show cause notices (SCNs) and any final orders passed in the pending adjudication proceedings initiated under the Customs Act, 1962, Finance Act, 1994. The court held that the inordinate delay by the respondents in concluding the adjudication proceedings for decades constituted a sufficient ground to annul those proceedings. Despite legislative provisions enabling the proper officers to seek extensions and conclude pending proceedings, the respondents failed to take proactive and effective steps to conclude proceedings initiated as far back as 2006. The court emphasized that matters involving financial liabilities or penal consequences cannot be kept pending for years, and the flexibility provided by the statute cannot be construed as sanctioning lethargy or indolence. The respondents were obligated to prove that it was impracticable to proceed or they were constrained by factors beyond their control. The practice of mechanically placing matters in the call book and retrieving them without proper application of mind was not acceptable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
