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 ...
HC held that a show-cause notice issued under s.130 of the UPGST Act, 2017, before any adjudication of tax liability under ss.73/74, contravenes s.35 and is therefore jurisdictionally defective. The court quashed and set aside the s.122 read with s.130 notice and the impugned adjudicatory order dated 17.09.2025, and also quashed the seizure order dated 06.09.2025. The petition is disposed. The revenue is left at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings consonant with statutory prescription by issuing show-cause notices under the appropriate substantive provisions of the Act, 2017, after determining tax liability in accordance with law.
HC held that a show-cause notice issued under s.130 of the UPGST Act, 2017, before any adjudication of tax liability under ss.73/74, contravenes s.35 and is therefore jurisdictionally defective. The court quashed and set aside the s.122 read with s.130 notice and the impugned adjudicatory order dated 17.09.2025, and also quashed the seizure order dated 06.09.2025. The petition is disposed. The revenue is left at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings consonant with statutory prescription by issuing show-cause notices under the appropriate substantive provisions of the Act, 2017, after determining tax liability in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
