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 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A High Court considered adjustment of refunds against disputed tax demand during pending appeals. It declined to interfere with an earlier refund adjustment because the challenge was brought after more than three years without explanation, treating delay as fatal to that claim. It held that Section 245 requires prior intimation before any refund adjustment so the assessee has a real opportunity to object; adjusting the refund the next day, despite a 21-day response window, violated the statute and natural justice. It also held that filing an appeal does not create an automatic stay, but recovery through refund adjustment should normally respect administrative guidance limiting recovery beyond 20% without special justification. The Court ordered refund of the excess over 20% without interest, subject to the pending appeal.
A High Court considered adjustment of refunds against disputed tax demand during pending appeals. It declined to interfere with an earlier refund adjustment because the challenge was brought after more than three years without explanation, treating delay as fatal to that claim. It held that Section 245 requires prior intimation before any refund adjustment so the assessee has a real opportunity to object; adjusting the refund the next day, despite a 21-day response window, violated the statute and natural justice. It also held that filing an appeal does not create an automatic stay, but recovery through refund adjustment should normally respect administrative guidance limiting recovery beyond 20% without special justification. The Court ordered refund of the excess over 20% without interest, subject to the pending appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
