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 - smuggling of Gold - baggage rules - The case involved the petitioner's challenge against the imposition of a penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for the importation of gold contrary to prohibition. Despite the petitioner's claims of ignorance, the court found evidence suggesting his knowledge and intent in carrying and concealing the gold. - The court clarified the difference between the strict liability concept u/s 112(a) and the requirement of mens rea u/s 112(b) - The court upheld the imposition of the penalty, emphasizing the petitioner's awareness of the law and the prohibited nature of the goods.
Levy of penalty - smuggling of Gold - baggage rules - The case involved the petitioner's challenge against the imposition of a penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for the importation of gold contrary to prohibition. Despite the petitioner's claims of ignorance, the court found evidence suggesting his knowledge and intent in carrying and concealing the gold. - The court clarified the difference between the strict liability concept u/s 112(a) and the requirement of mens rea u/s 112(b) - The court upheld the imposition of the penalty, emphasizing the petitioner's awareness of the law and the prohibited nature of the goods.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
