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 ...
Denial of FTA benefit - Import of Alkalised Cocoa Powder from Malaysia - The Tribunal noted that the denial of FTA benefits was based solely on the suspicion of non-compliance with the value addition requirement. However, it found that no independent verification was conducted to substantiate this suspicion. - The Tribunal highlighted the lack of proper verification by the customs authorities regarding the validity of the certificates of origin. It emphasized the requirement under the Customs Tariff Rules for retroactive checks and noted the absence of such checks in the present case. Consequently, it concluded that the denial of benefits based on presumption and assumption without proper verification was not maintainable in law. - Additionally, it observed that similar cases had been decided in favor of the appellant, rendering the issue non-res-integra. Therefore, the denial of benefits was unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.
Denial of FTA benefit - Import of Alkalised Cocoa Powder from Malaysia - The Tribunal noted that the denial of FTA benefits was based solely on the suspicion of non-compliance with the value addition requirement. However, it found that no independent verification was conducted to substantiate this suspicion. - The Tribunal highlighted the lack of proper verification by the customs authorities regarding the validity of the certificates of origin. It emphasized the requirement under the Customs Tariff Rules for retroactive checks and noted the absence of such checks in the present case. Consequently, it concluded that the denial of benefits based on presumption and assumption without proper verification was not maintainable in law. - Additionally, it observed that similar cases had been decided in favor of the appellant, rendering the issue non-res-integra. Therefore, the denial of benefits was unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.