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 ...
The Tribunal held that since the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 were not followed, the goods cannot be considered prohibited, and consequently, cannot be absolutely confiscated. The valuation adopted by the Revenue by taking the price of original branded goods from an e-commerce site was incorrect as the goods were counterfeit. Since the goods were not liable for absolute confiscation and the enhancement of value by the department was unacceptable, the entire penalties imposed against all the appellants were set aside. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that since the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 were not followed, the goods cannot be considered prohibited, and consequently, cannot be absolutely confiscated. The valuation adopted by the Revenue by taking the price of original branded goods from an e-commerce site was incorrect as the goods were counterfeit. Since the goods were not liable for absolute confiscation and the enhancement of value by the department was unacceptable, the entire penalties imposed against all the appellants were set aside. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.