Revenue neutrality in domestic related-party loans can require deletion of interest transfer pricing adjustments after domestic-transaction verificati...
The AT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, finding that the Respondent unlawfully retained seized property/documents beyond the initial 180-day period under s.8(3)(a) and failed to furnish relied-upon documents (including FIR copies, ITRs and GSTRs) to the Appellant, thereby breaching procedural fairness; disclosure of the ECIR was correctly deemed unnecessary. The Directorate lacked mandate to continue retention absent proper compliance. If a prosecution complaint has since been filed and the seized property is proposed for confiscation, its release is now governed by the order of the Special Court, and the Appellant remains at liberty to pursue available remedies before that court.
The AT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, finding that the Respondent unlawfully retained seized property/documents beyond the initial 180-day period under s.8(3)(a) and failed to furnish relied-upon documents (including FIR copies, ITRs and GSTRs) to the Appellant, thereby breaching procedural fairness; disclosure of the ECIR was correctly deemed unnecessary. The Directorate lacked mandate to continue retention absent proper compliance. If a prosecution complaint has since been filed and the seized property is proposed for confiscation, its release is now governed by the order of the Special Court, and the Appellant remains at liberty to pursue available remedies before that court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
