Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
