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 ...
HC found merit in petitioner's challenge regarding violation of natural justice principles and non-application of mind in the impugned orders. Court directed petitioner to deposit 10% of disputed tax amount within four weeks from order receipt, as mutually agreed by both parties' counsel. The impugned orders dated 24.08.2024 and 07.12.2024 were set aside. Matter remanded back to adjudicating authority, granting petitioner final opportunity to present objections. Petition disposed of with these directions, ensuring procedural fairness while safeguarding revenue interests through partial tax deposit requirement.
HC found merit in petitioner's challenge regarding violation of natural justice principles and non-application of mind in the impugned orders. Court directed petitioner to deposit 10% of disputed tax amount within four weeks from order receipt, as mutually agreed by both parties' counsel. The impugned orders dated 24.08.2024 and 07.12.2024 were set aside. Matter remanded back to adjudicating authority, granting petitioner final opportunity to present objections. Petition disposed of with these directions, ensuring procedural fairness while safeguarding revenue interests through partial tax deposit requirement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.