Mis-declaration in import descriptions must be deliberate to justify confiscation; withheld contemporaneous import documents invalidate value redeterm...
Liability for EPCG export shortfall: duty and interest sustained, but confiscation and penalties quashed where no fraud and causes beyond importer con...
Primary issue was whether assets received under a scheme of demerger attracted deemed income u/s 56(2)(x) because the demerger allegedly violated Section 2(19AA) and the swap ratio/valuation contravened Rule 11UA. Tribunal held Section 2(19AA)(iv) mandates proportionate share allotment only, Rule 11UA cannot be read into Section 2(19AA), the registered valuer's computation was reasonable and the scheme complied with Section 2(19AA) read with Section 47(vi); consequence: addition u/s 56(2)(x) deleted. Separately, payment under an unregistered MOU was not a "specified agreement" attracting TDS u/s 194IC; consequence: no TDS liability. - ITAT
Primary issue was whether assets received under a scheme of demerger attracted deemed income u/s 56(2)(x) because the demerger allegedly violated Section 2(19AA) and the swap ratio/valuation contravened Rule 11UA. Tribunal held Section 2(19AA)(iv) mandates proportionate share allotment only, Rule 11UA cannot be read into Section 2(19AA), the registered valuer's computation was reasonable and the scheme complied with Section 2(19AA) read with Section 47(vi); consequence: addition u/s 56(2)(x) deleted. Separately, payment under an unregistered MOU was not a "specified agreement" attracting TDS u/s 194IC; consequence: no TDS liability. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.