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 CESTAT held that the movement of goods from the appellant's manufacturing unit in Rajasthan to its depots in Bihar and Jharkhand constituted inter-state stock transfers, not inter-state supply of goods. Consequently, no central sales tax was leviable. The demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed, considering the Liquor Sourcing Policy of Bihar, Liquor Policy of Jharkhand, and identical Master Agreements between the appellant and Corporations in those states.
The CESTAT held that the movement of goods from the appellant's manufacturing unit in Rajasthan to its depots in Bihar and Jharkhand constituted inter-state stock transfers, not inter-state supply of goods. Consequently, no central sales tax was leviable. The demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed, considering the Liquor Sourcing Policy of Bihar, Liquor Policy of Jharkhand, and identical Master Agreements between the appellant and Corporations in those states.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
