Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 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" ?
Whistleblower reward received from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was held taxable as income, because section 2(24) is of wide amplitude and the payment arose from arranged pursuit of whistleblower claims, legal assistance on success-fee terms, collection of material, filing of the complaint, and cooperation in the investigation. The Tribunal found a clear element of expectation and quid pro quo, so the receipt was neither gratuitous nor a windfall or capital receipt. It further held that the one-time character of the payment did not make it capital, and that the amount was at least taxable as income from other sources under section 56(1).
Whistleblower reward received from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was held taxable as income, because section 2(24) is of wide amplitude and the payment arose from arranged pursuit of whistleblower claims, legal assistance on success-fee terms, collection of material, filing of the complaint, and cooperation in the investigation. The Tribunal found a clear element of expectation and quid pro quo, so the receipt was neither gratuitous nor a windfall or capital receipt. It further held that the one-time character of the payment did not make it capital, and that the amount was at least taxable as income from other sources under section 56(1).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.