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...
A case concerning the suspension of a warehousing operation, alleged breach of conditions for operating a public bonded warehouse, and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The High Court upheld the CESTAT's findings that there was no breach of license conditions, based on the record and permissions granted by Customs authorities for unloading/storing goods under their supervision. The allegations of misinterpreting permissions were found baseless. The CESTAT correctly overlooked procedural issues not raised earlier regarding advance discharge permission and mandatory filing of Bills of Entry before vessel arrival. With no breach of license terms or confiscation of goods, the CESTAT rightly set aside penalties u/ss 117 and 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act for alleged violations like non-reporting of time-expired bonds, storage of non-bonded goods, and lack of audit trail facilities. No substantial question of law arose, and the Appeal was dismissed.
A case concerning the suspension of a warehousing operation, alleged breach of conditions for operating a public bonded warehouse, and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The High Court upheld the CESTAT's findings that there was no breach of license conditions, based on the record and permissions granted by Customs authorities for unloading/storing goods under their supervision. The allegations of misinterpreting permissions were found baseless. The CESTAT correctly overlooked procedural issues not raised earlier regarding advance discharge permission and mandatory filing of Bills of Entry before vessel arrival. With no breach of license terms or confiscation of goods, the CESTAT rightly set aside penalties u/ss 117 and 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act for alleged violations like non-reporting of time-expired bonds, storage of non-bonded goods, and lack of audit trail facilities. No substantial question of law arose, and the Appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
