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 adjudicated a challenge to the First Appellate Authority's order mandating a deposit for stay of the impugned tax order. It recognized a Central revenue notification reducing the deposit requirement to 10% of the disputed tax. The State revenue issued a corresponding notification aligning with this reduction. Consequently, the HC modified the earlier order, directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the remaining disputed tax to maintain the stay. The petitioner's submission regarding the reduced deposit was accepted, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with the stay contingent upon compliance with the revised deposit condition.
The HC adjudicated a challenge to the First Appellate Authority's order mandating a deposit for stay of the impugned tax order. It recognized a Central revenue notification reducing the deposit requirement to 10% of the disputed tax. The State revenue issued a corresponding notification aligning with this reduction. Consequently, the HC modified the earlier order, directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the remaining disputed tax to maintain the stay. The petitioner's submission regarding the reduced deposit was accepted, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with the stay contingent upon compliance with the revised deposit condition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
