Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The case pertains to the prohibition of benami property transactions and the applicability of amended provisions introduced by the Amending Act of 2016 to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The key points are: The Initiating Officer (I.O.) attached an agricultural land, alleging it to be a benami transaction, but could not identify the beneficial owner. The Adjudicating Authority treated the transaction as falling u/s 2(9A) of the amended Act, despite it being prior to the 2016 amendment. The Supreme Court has clarified that the amended provisions have prospective application. Transactions prior to November 1, 2016, not covered by Section 2(9A) of the amended Act, are governed by the judgment in Union of India & Anr. vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. An exception may apply if the case falls u/s 2(9A) of the amended definition, as per the Appellate Tribunal's judgment in M/s. Prism Scan Express Pvt. Ltd.
The case pertains to the prohibition of benami property transactions and the applicability of amended provisions introduced by the Amending Act of 2016 to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The key points are: The Initiating Officer (I.O.) attached an agricultural land, alleging it to be a benami transaction, but could not identify the beneficial owner. The Adjudicating Authority treated the transaction as falling u/s 2(9A) of the amended Act, despite it being prior to the 2016 amendment. The Supreme Court has clarified that the amended provisions have prospective application. Transactions prior to November 1, 2016, not covered by Section 2(9A) of the amended Act, are governed by the judgment in Union of India & Anr. vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. An exception may apply if the case falls u/s 2(9A) of the amended definition, as per the Appellate Tribunal's judgment in M/s. Prism Scan Express Pvt. Ltd.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
