Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 
