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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
CESTAT Bangalore heard a case involving a Customs Broker accused of smuggling Red Sander Logs. The issue of forfeiture of security deposit was raised, but the Tribunal found the notice issuance within 90 days, complying with Regulation (20) of CBLR 2013. The lack of opportunity for cross-examination was raised, but as the broker failed to appear for scheduled cross-examinations, this claim was dismissed. Violation of Section 11(n) of CBLR 2013 was established as the broker failed to verify antecedents and other details of the exporter. Despite this, the Tribunal noted no evidence of conspiracy in smuggling and deemed the penalty of Rs.25,000 for security deposit forfeiture sufficient. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the forfeiture decision.
CESTAT Bangalore heard a case involving a Customs Broker accused of smuggling Red Sander Logs. The issue of forfeiture of security deposit was raised, but the Tribunal found the notice issuance within 90 days, complying with Regulation (20) of CBLR 2013. The lack of opportunity for cross-examination was raised, but as the broker failed to appear for scheduled cross-examinations, this claim was dismissed. Violation of Section 11(n) of CBLR 2013 was established as the broker failed to verify antecedents and other details of the exporter. Despite this, the Tribunal noted no evidence of conspiracy in smuggling and deemed the penalty of Rs.25,000 for security deposit forfeiture sufficient. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the forfeiture decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
