Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Levy of penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act 1962 - petitioner has any role in the smuggling of Gold activity or not - Appellant is the financer of the importer - It is found that the appellant cannot come within the ambit of Section 112(b) because appellants had never acquired possession or in any way concerned in any of the activities mentioned in the Section or any measure dealing with any goods which the appellants knew or had reason to believe are liable to confiscation. - AT
Levy of penalty u/s 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act 1962 - petitioner has any role in the smuggling of Gold activity or not - Appellant is the financer of the importer - It is found that the appellant cannot come within the ambit of Section 112(b) because appellants had never acquired possession or in any way concerned in any of the activities mentioned in the Section or any measure dealing with any goods which the appellants knew or had reason to believe are liable to confiscation. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
