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 held that the impugned assessment order confirming tax demand of Rs. 6,93,77,821/-, in excess of the sum of Rs. 2,49,63,816/- proposed in the show-cause notice, was contrary to s.75(7) KGST Act and violative of principles of natural justice. It observed that the authority could not travel beyond the quantification in the SCN and that the rectification application was wrongly rejected on jurisdictional grounds. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order-in-original and the consequential order (Annexures-A and A1) and remanded the matter to the jurisdictional authority (R-3) for fresh consideration and reassessment strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC held that the impugned assessment order confirming tax demand of Rs. 6,93,77,821/-, in excess of the sum of Rs. 2,49,63,816/- proposed in the show-cause notice, was contrary to s.75(7) KGST Act and violative of principles of natural justice. It observed that the authority could not travel beyond the quantification in the SCN and that the rectification application was wrongly rejected on jurisdictional grounds. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order-in-original and the consequential order (Annexures-A and A1) and remanded the matter to the jurisdictional authority (R-3) for fresh consideration and reassessment strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
