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 allowed the writ appeal, set aside the Single-Member bench decision and ruled for the Revenue. The court held that refunds under section 49(6) are permissive only "in accordance with" section 54, and do not independently entitle a taxpayer to refund accumulated input tax credit (ITC) on discontinuance or disposals unless statutory preconditions are met. The respondent failed to plead or prove reversal of accumulated credit under section 29(5) and did not establish entitlement under section 54 or applicable rules. Consequently the writ was held not maintainable and no constitutional or statutory violation was made out entitling to the claimed refund.
The HC allowed the writ appeal, set aside the Single-Member bench decision and ruled for the Revenue. The court held that refunds under section 49(6) are permissive only "in accordance with" section 54, and do not independently entitle a taxpayer to refund accumulated input tax credit (ITC) on discontinuance or disposals unless statutory preconditions are met. The respondent failed to plead or prove reversal of accumulated credit under section 29(5) and did not establish entitlement under section 54 or applicable rules. Consequently the writ was held not maintainable and no constitutional or statutory violation was made out entitling to the claimed refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.