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...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
10kg of gold consisting of 10 gold bars, with 7 bars bearing foreign markings and 3 bars without markings, was seized along with cash from an employee of the appellant. The appellant claimed the 3 unmarked bars were melted from old jewelry. Section 123 of the Customs Act was invoked, requiring the appellant to prove the 7 marked bars were not smuggled goods. The Tribunal held there was reasonable belief of smuggling for the 7 bars, but not for the 3 unmarked bars, shifting the burden of proof to the department for those. The department failed to prove the 3 bars were smuggled. Confiscation of the 7 marked bars was upheld as smuggled goods u/s 111(d), but confiscation of the 3 unmarked bars was set aside. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA were reduced proportionately. The appeal was partly allowed, and the department was directed to release the 3 unmarked bars.
10kg of gold consisting of 10 gold bars, with 7 bars bearing foreign markings and 3 bars without markings, was seized along with cash from an employee of the appellant. The appellant claimed the 3 unmarked bars were melted from old jewelry. Section 123 of the Customs Act was invoked, requiring the appellant to prove the 7 marked bars were not smuggled goods. The Tribunal held there was reasonable belief of smuggling for the 7 bars, but not for the 3 unmarked bars, shifting the burden of proof to the department for those. The department failed to prove the 3 bars were smuggled. Confiscation of the 7 marked bars was upheld as smuggled goods u/s 111(d), but confiscation of the 3 unmarked bars was set aside. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA were reduced proportionately. The appeal was partly allowed, and the department was directed to release the 3 unmarked bars.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
