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...
Customs duty levied on imported goods destroyed by fire in SEZ units. SEZ units procured duty-free goods indigenously, availing exemptions under SEZ Act, 2005 and Rules, 2006. However, the goods were not used for authorized operations, violating provisions. Remission of customs duty sought. Tribunal consistently held that in case of destruction due to natural causes in SEZ, the unit is entitled to duty remission u/s 23 of Customs Act, 1962. However, appellant did not opt for duty remission by filing appropriate application before the competent authority. Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for appellant to file application seeking duty remission u/s 23 of Customs Act, 1962 and relevant rules. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed for remand to pass fresh order after observing principles of natural justice.
Customs duty levied on imported goods destroyed by fire in SEZ units. SEZ units procured duty-free goods indigenously, availing exemptions under SEZ Act, 2005 and Rules, 2006. However, the goods were not used for authorized operations, violating provisions. Remission of customs duty sought. Tribunal consistently held that in case of destruction due to natural causes in SEZ, the unit is entitled to duty remission u/s 23 of Customs Act, 1962. However, appellant did not opt for duty remission by filing appropriate application before the competent authority. Matter remanded to Adjudicating Authority for appellant to file application seeking duty remission u/s 23 of Customs Act, 1962 and relevant rules. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed for remand to pass fresh order after observing principles of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
