Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Provisional attachment under money-laundering law was examined on the quantification of proceeds of crime, tracing of tainted funds, and the sufficiency of reasons to believe. The Tribunal upheld the computation, finding that the attachment order explained the basis of recovery and that the appellant's requested deductions were unsupported or already accounted for in the quantified amount. It also accepted that the statutory reverse burden required the person concerned to explain the source of property after notice under Section 8(1), and rejected the challenge under Section 5(1) because the reasons for attachment were reflected in the order and supporting material. The order was treated as speaking, and the appeal was dismissed.
Provisional attachment under money-laundering law was examined on the quantification of proceeds of crime, tracing of tainted funds, and the sufficiency of reasons to believe. The Tribunal upheld the computation, finding that the attachment order explained the basis of recovery and that the appellant's requested deductions were unsupported or already accounted for in the quantified amount. It also accepted that the statutory reverse burden required the person concerned to explain the source of property after notice under Section 8(1), and rejected the challenge under Section 5(1) because the reasons for attachment were reflected in the order and supporting material. The order was treated as speaking, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
