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 AT held that civil courts and the tribunal lack jurisdiction to determine cultivation rights, which fall exclusively within the revenue courts' purview. The appellants had transferred cultivation rights via sub-leases to third parties, thereby forfeiting any right to repossess those rights. Additionally, as the appellants were not recorded owners in revenue records, they possessed no authority to evict the sub-lessees for alleged breaches under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. Consequently, the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the sub-lessees' rights. The appeals were dismissed on these grounds.
The AT held that civil courts and the tribunal lack jurisdiction to determine cultivation rights, which fall exclusively within the revenue courts' purview. The appellants had transferred cultivation rights via sub-leases to third parties, thereby forfeiting any right to repossess those rights. Additionally, as the appellants were not recorded owners in revenue records, they possessed no authority to evict the sub-lessees for alleged breaches under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. Consequently, the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the sub-lessees' rights. The appeals were dismissed on these grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
