Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Shares held in a demat account were treated as property acquired from proceeds of crime where the appellant, a Data Entry Operator on a modest salary, had received funds from an entity linked to alleged diversion of money and could not substantiate her claim that the transfer was a one-time family medical help. The bank records showed the amount was used to purchase shares of M/s CGPISL, which remained in the demat account. The Appellate Tribunal found no illegality in the provisional attachment merely because the appellant was not named in the FIR and upheld the attachment of the shares. The appeal was dismissed.
Shares held in a demat account were treated as property acquired from proceeds of crime where the appellant, a Data Entry Operator on a modest salary, had received funds from an entity linked to alleged diversion of money and could not substantiate her claim that the transfer was a one-time family medical help. The bank records showed the amount was used to purchase shares of M/s CGPISL, which remained in the demat account. The Appellate Tribunal found no illegality in the provisional attachment merely because the appellant was not named in the FIR and upheld the attachment of the shares. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.