Income Declaration Scheme declarations can evidence share-capital sources, while round-tripped funds and cash-linked credits require further verificat...
Permanent establishment tests: independent subsidiary premises and principal-to-principal dealings did not create Indian taxability for offshore suppl...
Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
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 4894 
