Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Section 206AA read with Rule 114AAA(3) applied where the seller's PAN was inoperative on the date of property purchase because it was not linked with Aadhaar, so higher TDS was prima facie attracted. However, the Tribunal held that the buyer should not bear higher TDS if evidence shows the seller disclosed the transaction in her return and paid due taxes, following the principle underlying section 40(a)(ia) and section 201(1). The demand was therefore not finally sustained and the matter was remitted for de novo verification of the seller's tax disclosure and payment.
Section 206AA read with Rule 114AAA(3) applied where the seller's PAN was inoperative on the date of property purchase because it was not linked with Aadhaar, so higher TDS was prima facie attracted. However, the Tribunal held that the buyer should not bear higher TDS if evidence shows the seller disclosed the transaction in her return and paid due taxes, following the principle underlying section 40(a)(ia) and section 201(1). The demand was therefore not finally sustained and the matter was remitted for de novo verification of the seller's tax disclosure and payment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.