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 dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law regarding invocation of the extended five-year limitation period under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994. The court upheld CESTAT's determination that the respondent's actions were based on bona fide belief rather than wilful misstatement or fraud. Though the Commissioner issued a composite show cause notice covering 2004-2009, the court declined to interfere with CESTAT's order, particularly regarding the period after the August 23, 2007 master circular, as no fraudulent intent was established to justify extending the limitation period.
HC dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law regarding invocation of the extended five-year limitation period under Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994. The court upheld CESTAT's determination that the respondent's actions were based on bona fide belief rather than wilful misstatement or fraud. Though the Commissioner issued a composite show cause notice covering 2004-2009, the court declined to interfere with CESTAT's order, particularly regarding the period after the August 23, 2007 master circular, as no fraudulent intent was established to justify extending the limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
