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 96176 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Amounts paid and collected under protest during the period of disputed tax liability were treated as part of compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement, because there was no express provision excluding such deposits from consideration. The High Court noted, prima facie, that the taxpayer had already paid TCS under protest from 1 April 2021, and that those sums related to the disputed liability period but had not been included in the quantification. Rejecting the contention that the payments amounted to an admission of liability for the later period, the Court modified the earlier interim condition and held that no further 10% deposit was required for the petition to proceed on merits.
Amounts paid and collected under protest during the period of disputed tax liability were treated as part of compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement, because there was no express provision excluding such deposits from consideration. The High Court noted, prima facie, that the taxpayer had already paid TCS under protest from 1 April 2021, and that those sums related to the disputed liability period but had not been included in the quantification. Rejecting the contention that the payments amounted to an admission of liability for the later period, the Court modified the earlier interim condition and held that no further 10% deposit was required for the petition to proceed on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
