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 borrower account fraud classification was quashed where the bank relied on a transaction audit report already found insufficient to support undervaluation, preferential or fraudulent transactions, and also on undisclosed Joint Lenders Meeting material. Because those materials were not supplied in the show cause notice or otherwise disclosed, the petitioners had no effective opportunity to respond, and the bank could not cure the defect by later referring to an FIR that had not formed part of the original decision-making record. The Court held that the process violated audi alteram partem and that the impugned order was non-speaking, while reserving liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law and RBI directions.
A borrower account fraud classification was quashed where the bank relied on a transaction audit report already found insufficient to support undervaluation, preferential or fraudulent transactions, and also on undisclosed Joint Lenders Meeting material. Because those materials were not supplied in the show cause notice or otherwise disclosed, the petitioners had no effective opportunity to respond, and the bank could not cure the defect by later referring to an FIR that had not formed part of the original decision-making record. The Court held that the process violated audi alteram partem and that the impugned order was non-speaking, while reserving liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law and RBI directions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.