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 Supreme Court held that the appellant was neither the importer nor the owner of the imported car in question under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 respectively. The original importer remained the legal owner as the vehicle was not registered in the appellant's name. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings against the appellant by issuing a show cause notice, seizing, and confiscating the vehicle was unlawful. The Supreme Court quashed the impugned judgments, show cause notices, and other proceedings against the appellant, and restored the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was neither the importer nor the owner of the imported car in question under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 respectively. The original importer remained the legal owner as the vehicle was not registered in the appellant's name. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings against the appellant by issuing a show cause notice, seizing, and confiscating the vehicle was unlawful. The Supreme Court quashed the impugned judgments, show cause notices, and other proceedings against the appellant, and restored the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
