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 allowed the petition, holding that delay and laches did...
Retrospective cancellation voided for jurisdictional defects; registration restored retrospectively and application for additional business place to be reconsidered
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The HC allowed the petition, holding that delay and laches did not bar relief but the show-cause notice suffered a jurisdictional defect rendering the retrospective cancellation of registration void. The court found the notice vague as to allegations of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression and that no notice had proposed retrospective cancellation; consequently the order of cancellation and the appellate affirmation were held bad in law. The orders of retrospective cancellation were set aside, the appellant's registration was directed to be restored with retrospective effect, and the authorities were ordered to consider the appellant's application for additional place of business in accordance with law.
The HC allowed the petition, holding that delay and laches did not bar relief but the show-cause notice suffered a jurisdictional defect rendering the retrospective cancellation of registration void. The court found the notice vague as to allegations of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression and that no notice had proposed retrospective cancellation; consequently the order of cancellation and the appellate affirmation were held bad in law. The orders of retrospective cancellation were set aside, the appellant's registration was directed to be restored with retrospective effect, and the authorities were ordered to consider the appellant's application for additional place of business in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
