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...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1661 to 1680 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Writ jurisdiction against a show cause notice is not barred in all cases and may be invoked where there is patent lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, non-application of mind or breach of natural justice; the High Court's refusal to entertain the challenge on maintainability alone was therefore unjustified. Under Section 37A FEMA, seizure depends on a substantive "reason to believe" that the foreign asset is held in contravention of Section 4, and refusal by the Competent Authority to confirm seizure is a considered finding that the threshold was not met. The High Court and the final adjudication order were set aside because they proceeded as if seizure had been confirmed and impaired the pending departmental appeal; the matter was restored to the show cause stage, with the appeal to be decided first.
Writ jurisdiction against a show cause notice is not barred in all cases and may be invoked where there is patent lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, non-application of mind or breach of natural justice; the High Court's refusal to entertain the challenge on maintainability alone was therefore unjustified. Under Section 37A FEMA, seizure depends on a substantive "reason to believe" that the foreign asset is held in contravention of Section 4, and refusal by the Competent Authority to confirm seizure is a considered finding that the threshold was not met. The High Court and the final adjudication order were set aside because they proceeded as if seizure had been confirmed and impaired the pending departmental appeal; the matter was restored to the show cause stage, with the appeal to be decided first.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
