Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Share premium received by a company with no real business activity and later traced into loans, advances and immovable property can be treated as benami property in converted form, because share premium is movable property capable of transformation into other assets or proceeds. The Tribunal sustained attachment to the extent of the bogus share premium and its converted form, but held that the specifically identified immovable property was wrongly attached because it was not shown to have been acquired by the company. A misdescription in the show cause notice did not invalidate the proceedings where the notice had clearly targeted the bogus share premium and its subsequent utilisation. The impugned order was modified to release the wrongly attached property while permitting attachment of the benami funds and their transformed assets.
Share premium received by a company with no real business activity and later traced into loans, advances and immovable property can be treated as benami property in converted form, because share premium is movable property capable of transformation into other assets or proceeds. The Tribunal sustained attachment to the extent of the bogus share premium and its converted form, but held that the specifically identified immovable property was wrongly attached because it was not shown to have been acquired by the company. A misdescription in the show cause notice did not invalidate the proceedings where the notice had clearly targeted the bogus share premium and its subsequent utilisation. The impugned order was modified to release the wrongly attached property while permitting attachment of the benami funds and their transformed assets.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
