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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1721 to 1740 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Smuggling - Gold - baggage rules - The petitioners, a husband and wife, returned to India from the United States and were stopped by customs officials upon arrival. The officials found the wife wearing five gold bangles, which had not been declared. The petitioners claimed the bangles were a gift from their daughter. - The High court categorized the gold bangles as restricted items under customs laws, emphasizing that failure to declare such items amounts to their prohibition. - The court found that the petitioners' failure to declare the gold bangles constituted a violation of customs laws, as they exceeded the permissible limits for duty-free importation. - The court upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to confiscate the gold bangles and impose fines and duties, citing the provisions of the Customs Act and related regulations.
Smuggling - Gold - baggage rules - The petitioners, a husband and wife, returned to India from the United States and were stopped by customs officials upon arrival. The officials found the wife wearing five gold bangles, which had not been declared. The petitioners claimed the bangles were a gift from their daughter. - The High court categorized the gold bangles as restricted items under customs laws, emphasizing that failure to declare such items amounts to their prohibition. - The court found that the petitioners' failure to declare the gold bangles constituted a violation of customs laws, as they exceeded the permissible limits for duty-free importation. - The court upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to confiscate the gold bangles and impose fines and duties, citing the provisions of the Customs Act and related regulations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
