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 HC held that u/s 74(1), the authority can issue a single notice calling upon the assessee to pay tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit was wrongly availed due to fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts, for any period, provided the notice is given at least 6 months prior to the time limit specified in Section 74(10). The petitioner's argument that separate notices should have been issued for each financial year was rejected. The petition challenging the show cause notice was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to raise all arguments before the concerned authority.
The HC held that u/s 74(1), the authority can issue a single notice calling upon the assessee to pay tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit was wrongly availed due to fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts, for any period, provided the notice is given at least 6 months prior to the time limit specified in Section 74(10). The petitioner's argument that separate notices should have been issued for each financial year was rejected. The petition challenging the show cause notice was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to raise all arguments before the concerned authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.