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 CESTAT allowed the appeal against the imposition of redemption fine u/s 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that when the exported goods are unavailable, confiscation cannot be ordered, and consequently, no redemption fine can be imposed. The redemption fine is conditional upon the assessee seeking redemption of the confiscated goods by paying the fine. Since the exported rice was unavailable, there was no question of redemption, rendering the redemption fine imposition incorrect and illegal. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal against the imposition of redemption fine u/s 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that when the exported goods are unavailable, confiscation cannot be ordered, and consequently, no redemption fine can be imposed. The redemption fine is conditional upon the assessee seeking redemption of the confiscated goods by paying the fine. Since the exported rice was unavailable, there was no question of redemption, rendering the redemption fine imposition incorrect and illegal. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.