Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.