Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 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" ?
Under the amended reassessment regime, the High Court held that capital gains from the property transfer had to be computed with the stamp duty valuation under Sections 148, 149, 50C and 48. Because the petitioner's one-fourth share, valued on that basis, exceeded the statutory threshold of fifty lakh rupees, the extended limitation period applied and the Section 148A(d) order and consequential Section 148 notice were not without jurisdiction. The Court also held that the complaint that the written reply was not considered did not alter the result once limitation was decided against the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed and assessment was directed to proceed, excluding the period spent before the Court for limitation purposes.
Under the amended reassessment regime, the High Court held that capital gains from the property transfer had to be computed with the stamp duty valuation under Sections 148, 149, 50C and 48. Because the petitioner's one-fourth share, valued on that basis, exceeded the statutory threshold of fifty lakh rupees, the extended limitation period applied and the Section 148A(d) order and consequential Section 148 notice were not without jurisdiction. The Court also held that the complaint that the written reply was not considered did not alter the result once limitation was decided against the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed and assessment was directed to proceed, excluding the period spent before the Court for limitation purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.