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 petitioner's claim for accumulation under s.11(2) despite delayed formalities, exercising powers under s.119(2)(b) to condone delay and grant exemption. The court found denial would cause genuine hardship because the accumulated funds were already applied to the trust's objects in AY 2020-21 and substantive statutory requirements (board resolution, Form 10B audit report, timely-filed return) were satisfied. The HC distinguished authority relied upon by the revenue as fact-specific and inapplicable, noting no change in the petitioner's claim. Relief was therefore granted, preventing tax recovery arising from denial of the accumulation benefit.
The HC allowed the petitioner's claim for accumulation under s.11(2) despite delayed formalities, exercising powers under s.119(2)(b) to condone delay and grant exemption. The court found denial would cause genuine hardship because the accumulated funds were already applied to the trust's objects in AY 2020-21 and substantive statutory requirements (board resolution, Form 10B audit report, timely-filed return) were satisfied. The HC distinguished authority relied upon by the revenue as fact-specific and inapplicable, noting no change in the petitioner's claim. Relief was therefore granted, preventing tax recovery arising from denial of the accumulation benefit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.