Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
Claim for deduction under Section 80-IA is rejected by Revenue because agreement was with a corporate and the fuel farm lay outside airport premises; court finds the agreement was with a statutory airport authority and that the fuel farm is an integral component of airport operations, so the requisite conditions for the 80-IA benefit are satisfied and the deduction is allowable. On interest deductibility under Section 36(1)(iii) for hedge (swap) transactions, the Tribunal's application of the controlling Supreme Court precedent supports allowance of the interest expense, and Revenue does not contest that applicability.
Claim for deduction under Section 80-IA is rejected by Revenue because agreement was with a corporate and the fuel farm lay outside airport premises; court finds the agreement was with a statutory airport authority and that the fuel farm is an integral component of airport operations, so the requisite conditions for the 80-IA benefit are satisfied and the deduction is allowable. On interest deductibility under Section 36(1)(iii) for hedge (swap) transactions, the Tribunal's application of the controlling Supreme Court precedent supports allowance of the interest expense, and Revenue does not contest that applicability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.