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 set aside the impugned order imposing a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant (customs clearing agent/employee), holding that there was no evidentiary basis to establish mens rea or active participation in diversion of imported goods subject to an advance licence; the record showed only handling of documents and no admission or statement implicating the appellant in physical delivery to an unauthorised location. For want of proof linking the appellant to the diversion or knowledge thereof, the Tribunal quashed the penalty and allowed the appeal, remitting no further relief.
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order imposing a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant (customs clearing agent/employee), holding that there was no evidentiary basis to establish mens rea or active participation in diversion of imported goods subject to an advance licence; the record showed only handling of documents and no admission or statement implicating the appellant in physical delivery to an unauthorised location. For want of proof linking the appellant to the diversion or knowledge thereof, the Tribunal quashed the penalty and allowed the appeal, remitting no further relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
