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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dated 17 February 2025 dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of the petitioner's alleged intent to avail an Amnesty Scheme. The HC held that, even if withdrawal of the appeal was a precondition to claim amnesty, only the petitioner could elect to withdraw; the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal suo motu absent any withdrawal request. Such dismissal, without notice or hearing, unlawfully deprived the petitioner both of eligibility under the Amnesty Scheme and of adjudication on merits. The HC remanded the matter to the appellate authority to rehear and decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dated 17 February 2025 dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of the petitioner's alleged intent to avail an Amnesty Scheme. The HC held that, even if withdrawal of the appeal was a precondition to claim amnesty, only the petitioner could elect to withdraw; the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal suo motu absent any withdrawal request. Such dismissal, without notice or hearing, unlawfully deprived the petitioner both of eligibility under the Amnesty Scheme and of adjudication on merits. The HC remanded the matter to the appellate authority to rehear and decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
