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...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
