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...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Failure to grant a personal hearing vitiated the assessment order. The Court noted that only two opportunities of hearing had been given, while the statute permits adjournment up to three times, and the petitioner had expressly sought a personal hearing in its GST DRC-06 response. As Section 75(4) requires a hearing when a written request is made or an adverse decision is contemplated, the proper officer was bound to hear the petitioner before deciding the matter. The ex parte assessment order was therefore quashed for breach of natural justice, and the case was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner, with revival of the earlier order if the petitioner again defaulted in appearance.
Failure to grant a personal hearing vitiated the assessment order. The Court noted that only two opportunities of hearing had been given, while the statute permits adjournment up to three times, and the petitioner had expressly sought a personal hearing in its GST DRC-06 response. As Section 75(4) requires a hearing when a written request is made or an adverse decision is contemplated, the proper officer was bound to hear the petitioner before deciding the matter. The ex parte assessment order was therefore quashed for breach of natural justice, and the case was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner, with revival of the earlier order if the petitioner again defaulted in appearance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
