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...
Nature of receipt - amount received under the Deed for restrictive covenant - revenue or capital receipt - ITAT, CIT and the AO have proceeded on an erroneous footing that the company came into existence only on 22nd June, 2000 and the assessee was inducted into its employment on 30th June, 2000 and therefore it was not feasible and it is inconceivable that appellant can be a privy to the business secrets of the company within a period of eight days of his employment. The deed of negative covenant does not provide or even indicate that appellant was privy to the business secrets of the company within a period of eight days - No material has been brought on record to show that the negative covenant agreement is a sham agreement. - HC
Nature of receipt - amount received under the Deed for restrictive covenant - revenue or capital receipt - ITAT, CIT and the AO have proceeded on an erroneous footing that the company came into existence only on 22nd June, 2000 and the assessee was inducted into its employment on 30th June, 2000 and therefore it was not feasible and it is inconceivable that appellant can be a privy to the business secrets of the company within a period of eight days of his employment. The deed of negative covenant does not provide or even indicate that appellant was privy to the business secrets of the company within a period of eight days - No material has been brought on record to show that the negative covenant agreement is a sham agreement. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
