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 upheld the state tax authority's order under Section 74(9) of BGST Act, finding no jurisdictional error in issuing the demand notice. The court determined that the order was legally valid, as it was passed after proper service of show cause notice, and the petitioner failed to contest the substantive facts. The HC rejected arguments about parallel investigations, confirming the authority's right to proceed with tax assessment despite ongoing central agency investigations, thereby maintaining procedural integrity in tax proceedings.
HC upheld the state tax authority's order under Section 74(9) of BGST Act, finding no jurisdictional error in issuing the demand notice. The court determined that the order was legally valid, as it was passed after proper service of show cause notice, and the petitioner failed to contest the substantive facts. The HC rejected arguments about parallel investigations, confirming the authority's right to proceed with tax assessment despite ongoing central agency investigations, thereby maintaining procedural integrity in tax proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.