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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 on terms, directing the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed tax, noting the petitioner had previously deposited 10% upon filing an appeal against the 05.12.2023 order. The Court acknowledged prior rulings balancing the interests of the assessee and revenue, mandating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with GST laws, excluding the pendency period from limitation computation. However, this principle was stayed by the Division Bench, and a contrary view from another High Court was noted, holding that jurisdictional challenges to proceedings initiated under the respondent's authority are impermissible even if the prior appeal is allowed. The petition was disposed of following compliance with the deposit condition, thereby affirming the continuation of proceedings subject to statutory adherence and interim financial safeguards.
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 on terms, directing the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed tax, noting the petitioner had previously deposited 10% upon filing an appeal against the 05.12.2023 order. The Court acknowledged prior rulings balancing the interests of the assessee and revenue, mandating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with GST laws, excluding the pendency period from limitation computation. However, this principle was stayed by the Division Bench, and a contrary view from another High Court was noted, holding that jurisdictional challenges to proceedings initiated under the respondent's authority are impermissible even if the prior appeal is allowed. The petition was disposed of following compliance with the deposit condition, thereby affirming the continuation of proceedings subject to statutory adherence and interim financial safeguards.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
