Independent manufacturing undertaking eligibility preserves Section 80IA/80IB deductions, while machinery kept ready for use qualifies for depreciatio...
Assessing Officer Satisfaction Requirement Bars Penalty for Cash Receipt in Immovable-Property Sale Cases Where Initiation Lacks Recorded Satisfaction...
Self-assessed import entries remain appealable, while bona fide classification disputes without misdeclaration cannot justify confiscation or penaltie...
Actual-user customs exemption conditions permit turnkey project transfers when imported windmill components are exclusively used for installation and ...
Customs offence disqualification excludes civil contraventions, preventing refusal of a private bonded warehouse licence based solely on monetary pena...
Fraudulent removal and replacement of financed, hypothecated machinery with lower-value machinery can establish fraudulent trading through cumulative documentary and circumstantial evidence. Financing records, invoices, hypothecation, independent valuations, physical indications of removal, lack of creditor consent, and an unsupported explanation for substituted machinery supported the inference of fraudulent intent. A technical dispute over the machinery's identity did not remove the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction. The Appellate Tribunal upheld fraudulent trading under the Code and affirmed the contribution direction, finding no basis to treat the quantified depletion of the corporate debtor's assets as arbitrary; depreciation and realisable-value arguments did not displace that finding.
Fraudulent removal and replacement of financed, hypothecated machinery with lower-value machinery can establish fraudulent trading through cumulative documentary and circumstantial evidence. Financing records, invoices, hypothecation, independent valuations, physical indications of removal, lack of creditor consent, and an unsupported explanation for substituted machinery supported the inference of fraudulent intent. A technical dispute over the machinery's identity did not remove the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction. The Appellate Tribunal upheld fraudulent trading under the Code and affirmed the contribution direction, finding no basis to treat the quantified depletion of the corporate debtor's assets as arbitrary; depreciation and realisable-value arguments did not displace that finding.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
