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 HC determined that issuing two show cause notices (SCNs) under different subsections of Section 28 for identical factual matrices is impermissible. The impugned SCN under Section 28(4) was issued just six weeks after a Section 28(1) notice concerning similar goods with similar alleged "mis-declaration," constituting an improper change of opinion. The court found the second notice failed to substantiate allegations of collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts required under Section 28(4), containing merely an "incantation" of statutory provisions without supporting substance. Furthermore, the respondent's contention that the impugned notice was a "supplementary notice" was rejected, as the Customs Act contemplates issuance under either Section 28(1) or 28(4), not both. Petition allowed.
The HC determined that issuing two show cause notices (SCNs) under different subsections of Section 28 for identical factual matrices is impermissible. The impugned SCN under Section 28(4) was issued just six weeks after a Section 28(1) notice concerning similar goods with similar alleged "mis-declaration," constituting an improper change of opinion. The court found the second notice failed to substantiate allegations of collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts required under Section 28(4), containing merely an "incantation" of statutory provisions without supporting substance. Furthermore, the respondent's contention that the impugned notice was a "supplementary notice" was rejected, as the Customs Act contemplates issuance under either Section 28(1) or 28(4), not both. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
