Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The AT affirms the provisional attachment order and dismisses the appeals, holding that the co-lending/service agreements between the NBFC and fintech entities effectively outsourced core management functions, facilitated misuse of borrower data and constituted prima facie commission of offences under sections 417, 419, 420 IPC and sections 66-C, 66-D IT Act. The tribunal finds the fintech entities, by providing funds as a purported "performance guarantee" and receiving guaranteed revenue or service fees, assumed substantive loan-related functions without due diligence, while the NBFC obtained assured returns without capital exposure. The appellants' contention of limited fintech involvement is rejected as the agreements demonstrate delegation of non-permissible core activities.
The AT affirms the provisional attachment order and dismisses the appeals, holding that the co-lending/service agreements between the NBFC and fintech entities effectively outsourced core management functions, facilitated misuse of borrower data and constituted prima facie commission of offences under sections 417, 419, 420 IPC and sections 66-C, 66-D IT Act. The tribunal finds the fintech entities, by providing funds as a purported "performance guarantee" and receiving guaranteed revenue or service fees, assumed substantive loan-related functions without due diligence, while the NBFC obtained assured returns without capital exposure. The appellants' contention of limited fintech involvement is rejected as the agreements demonstrate delegation of non-permissible core activities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
