Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Page of 4897
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
401 to 420 of 97923 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4897 
