International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enter...
Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
The dominant issues were whether CBDT instructions could override the Benami Act, 1988 and whether the 2016 amendments were inapplicable where the initial transfer pre-dated the amendment but the property continued to be held thereafter. It was held that CBDT instructions were administrative and did not control or dilute statutory powers; the Initiating Officer validly exercised authority to provisionally attach property under the 1988 Act, hence the challenge failed. It was further held that excluding amended provisions merely because the initial transfer occurred earlier, despite continued holding post-amendment, would impermissibly rewrite the 2016 amendments; hence the amended regime applied. On facts, the property was found to be benami for the benefit of an interested party, and further transfers were treated as void under s.6, so no interference was warranted and the appeal was dismissed. - AT
The dominant issues were whether CBDT instructions could override the Benami Act, 1988 and whether the 2016 amendments were inapplicable where the initial transfer pre-dated the amendment but the property continued to be held thereafter. It was held that CBDT instructions were administrative and did not control or dilute statutory powers; the Initiating Officer validly exercised authority to provisionally attach property under the 1988 Act, hence the challenge failed. It was further held that excluding amended provisions merely because the initial transfer occurred earlier, despite continued holding post-amendment, would impermissibly rewrite the 2016 amendments; hence the amended regime applied. On facts, the property was found to be benami for the benefit of an interested party, and further transfers were treated as void under s.6, so no interference was warranted and the appeal was dismissed. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
