Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
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 4827 
Join Channel 
