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 ...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1461 to 1480 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Mere deposit of cash in an electronic cash ledger does not amount to payment of GST unless the amount is appropriated to the Government exchequer under Section 49(1) read with Rule 87(6) and (7); where appropriation occurs later, the tax liability is discharged only then and interest remains payable for the period of delay. Input tax credit arising from reverse charge could not be availed before appropriation, but separate recovery of the wrongly availed credit was not justified after the taxpayer later made the debit entries and the amount stood appropriated. The Court also found that the question whether the omission reflected inadvertence or suppression with intent to evade tax required fresh factual consideration, and the composite order for two tax periods was set aside with remand for separate orders.
Mere deposit of cash in an electronic cash ledger does not amount to payment of GST unless the amount is appropriated to the Government exchequer under Section 49(1) read with Rule 87(6) and (7); where appropriation occurs later, the tax liability is discharged only then and interest remains payable for the period of delay. Input tax credit arising from reverse charge could not be availed before appropriation, but separate recovery of the wrongly availed credit was not justified after the taxpayer later made the debit entries and the amount stood appropriated. The Court also found that the question whether the omission reflected inadvertence or suppression with intent to evade tax required fresh factual consideration, and the composite order for two tax periods was set aside with remand for separate orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
