Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dividend stripping on mutual fund units: the ITAT held that dividend could not be treated as a return of capital or deducted from cost of acquisition without a specific statutory basis. Section 94's anti-dividend stripping rule applies only when its conditions are cumulatively satisfied; here, the required purchase and sale timing conditions were not both met, so the provision was inapplicable. General survey findings and alleged SEBI violations, without material linking the assessee to manipulation, did not justify branding the transaction as sham. The addition was deleted on merits.
Dividend stripping on mutual fund units: the ITAT held that dividend could not be treated as a return of capital or deducted from cost of acquisition without a specific statutory basis. Section 94's anti-dividend stripping rule applies only when its conditions are cumulatively satisfied; here, the required purchase and sale timing conditions were not both met, so the provision was inapplicable. General survey findings and alleged SEBI violations, without material linking the assessee to manipulation, did not justify branding the transaction as sham. The addition was deleted on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.