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 writ and directed the respondent to refund the wrongly retained tax together with interest under s.243 until payment, holding that the respondent lacked statutory authority to set off or retain the amount because it failed to demonstrate any tax liability due from the petitioner. The court emphasized that recovery of tax requires a specific charging provision and rejected reliance on prior authorities as inapplicable to the distinct cause of action. Consequential relief in the form of interest was granted and the respondent was ordered to complete the refund process within ten weeks from communication of the order.
The HC allowed the petitioner's writ and directed the respondent to refund the wrongly retained tax together with interest under s.243 until payment, holding that the respondent lacked statutory authority to set off or retain the amount because it failed to demonstrate any tax liability due from the petitioner. The court emphasized that recovery of tax requires a specific charging provision and rejected reliance on prior authorities as inapplicable to the distinct cause of action. Consequential relief in the form of interest was granted and the respondent was ordered to complete the refund process within ten weeks from communication of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.