Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The case pertains to a provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, involving a benami transaction. The key points are: The property was purchased before the 2016 amendment, but the benamidar held it even after the amendment. The amending Act's definition of "benami transaction" was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. The company in whose name the property was purchased lacked the financial capacity to pay the consideration of Rs. 1 crore. Another company, whose ITR reflected the property's address, was found to be holding the property in the name of the first company. Despite not contesting the factual issues, the Appellate Tribunal found reasons to interfere with the impugned order, likely due to the applicability of the amended Act's provisions and the evidence suggesting a benami transaction.
The case pertains to a provisional attachment order issued u/s 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, involving a benami transaction. The key points are: The property was purchased before the 2016 amendment, but the benamidar held it even after the amendment. The amending Act's definition of "benami transaction" was not considered by the Adjudicating Authority. The company in whose name the property was purchased lacked the financial capacity to pay the consideration of Rs. 1 crore. Another company, whose ITR reflected the property's address, was found to be holding the property in the name of the first company. Despite not contesting the factual issues, the Appellate Tribunal found reasons to interfere with the impugned order, likely due to the applicability of the amended Act's provisions and the evidence suggesting a benami transaction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
