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 dispute involved two containers of Gillette brand goods where CESTAT addressed issues of undervaluation. The tribunal found that the goods were not prohibited under Customs Act SS11, but there was clear mis-declaration of transaction value, as admitted by the proprietor of M/s Royal Trades who confessed to filing fraudulent invoices to evade duty. While this admission shifted the burden of proof to the appellant per SC precedent in United India Insurance, CESTAT determined that principles of natural justice were violated due to non-disclosure of essential documents in the Show Cause Notice. Though this procedural defect was curable, it necessitated remand. Accordingly, CESTAT disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter to the Original Authority for de novo adjudication.
The dispute involved two containers of Gillette brand goods where CESTAT addressed issues of undervaluation. The tribunal found that the goods were not prohibited under Customs Act SS11, but there was clear mis-declaration of transaction value, as admitted by the proprietor of M/s Royal Trades who confessed to filing fraudulent invoices to evade duty. While this admission shifted the burden of proof to the appellant per SC precedent in United India Insurance, CESTAT determined that principles of natural justice were violated due to non-disclosure of essential documents in the Show Cause Notice. Though this procedural defect was curable, it necessitated remand. Accordingly, CESTAT disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter to the Original Authority for de novo adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
