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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's SLP for delay and on the merits, thereby affirming the High Court's order directing the Revenue to grant interest under section 244A on the refund from the date of TDS deposit until payment, to be completed within 12 weeks. Facts: compensation for acquisition of petitioners' agricultural land attracted interest; assessee's belated return was condoned under section 119(2)(b); tax was deducted under an incorrect provision (section 194C instead of section 194A). The SLP was held to be barred by an unexplained 398-day delay and lacked substantive merit, so the HC relief in favor of the assessee is sustained.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's SLP for delay and on the merits, thereby affirming the High Court's order directing the Revenue to grant interest under section 244A on the refund from the date of TDS deposit until payment, to be completed within 12 weeks. Facts: compensation for acquisition of petitioners' agricultural land attracted interest; assessee's belated return was condoned under section 119(2)(b); tax was deducted under an incorrect provision (section 194C instead of section 194A). The SLP was held to be barred by an unexplained 398-day delay and lacked substantive merit, so the HC relief in favor of the assessee is sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.