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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by an informer seeking directions against private respondents (importers of luxury cars) and statutory authorities (Customs, DRI) for alleged undervaluation and duty evasion. The court held that complex matters involving technical expertise on import valuation, pricing, and duty cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The statutory authorities had already investigated based on the informer's information and found no violation by the importers. Mere suspicion without substantiating collusion or mala fides cannot warrant directions against authorities or importers. The informer cannot misuse his status for a witch-hunt against importers. Substantial investigation had already occurred, and the proceedings cannot continue merely on the informer's insistence. The court cannot issue directions regarding future imports in writ jurisdiction.
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by an informer seeking directions against private respondents (importers of luxury cars) and statutory authorities (Customs, DRI) for alleged undervaluation and duty evasion. The court held that complex matters involving technical expertise on import valuation, pricing, and duty cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The statutory authorities had already investigated based on the informer's information and found no violation by the importers. Mere suspicion without substantiating collusion or mala fides cannot warrant directions against authorities or importers. The informer cannot misuse his status for a witch-hunt against importers. Substantial investigation had already occurred, and the proceedings cannot continue merely on the informer's insistence. The court cannot issue directions regarding future imports in writ jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
