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 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1461 to 1480 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Parallel GST proceedings are barred only when both actions concern the same subject matter, meaning the same tax liability, facts, contravention and period. Here, the later Section 74 proceedings related to Financial Year 2018-2019 and alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit on goods-less invoices, while the earlier Section 73 action concerned Financial Year 2019-2020 and different return discrepancies; the bar under Section 6(2)(b) therefore did not apply and the proceedings were maintainable. The Court also found that the impugned order had considered the taxpayer's reply, so there was no breach of natural justice. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Parallel GST proceedings are barred only when both actions concern the same subject matter, meaning the same tax liability, facts, contravention and period. Here, the later Section 74 proceedings related to Financial Year 2018-2019 and alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit on goods-less invoices, while the earlier Section 73 action concerned Financial Year 2019-2020 and different return discrepancies; the bar under Section 6(2)(b) therefore did not apply and the proceedings were maintainable. The Court also found that the impugned order had considered the taxpayer's reply, so there was no breach of natural justice. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.