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 CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the demand of customs duty. The Tribunal held that the Appellant had obtained a bonded warehouse license u/s 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the manufacturing activity was carried out within the licensed premises in the knowledge of the Revenue authorities since 1986. Despite the impracticable conditions imposed under the license, the Revenue did not raise any objections for over 30 years. The Tribunal observed that there was no allegation of diversion or misuse of imported goods by the Appellant. The amendment to the license in 2017, enlarging the bonded area to the entire factory premises, was treated as a curative measure with retrospective effect from 2014. Consequently, the demands raised by invoking Sections 28 and 72 of the Customs Act were set aside by the Tribunal.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the demand of customs duty. The Tribunal held that the Appellant had obtained a bonded warehouse license u/s 58 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the manufacturing activity was carried out within the licensed premises in the knowledge of the Revenue authorities since 1986. Despite the impracticable conditions imposed under the license, the Revenue did not raise any objections for over 30 years. The Tribunal observed that there was no allegation of diversion or misuse of imported goods by the Appellant. The amendment to the license in 2017, enlarging the bonded area to the entire factory premises, was treated as a curative measure with retrospective effect from 2014. Consequently, the demands raised by invoking Sections 28 and 72 of the Customs Act were set aside by the Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
