Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
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.