Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
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...
Cash recovered from the appellant's possession was held to be tangible movable property and capable of constituting benami property under the PBPT Act, which covers movable as well as immovable assets. The Tribunal rejected the argument that a benami transaction requires three parties, holding that a benamidar and beneficial owner alone are sufficient under the statutory scheme. It further found that Section 2(9)(D) applied because the persons allegedly providing the cash were not traceable and the source of consideration remained unexplained. The appellant's willingness to offer the amount to tax did not bar PBPT proceedings, as the Act operates independently of the Income-tax Act. The provisional attachment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Cash recovered from the appellant's possession was held to be tangible movable property and capable of constituting benami property under the PBPT Act, which covers movable as well as immovable assets. The Tribunal rejected the argument that a benami transaction requires three parties, holding that a benamidar and beneficial owner alone are sufficient under the statutory scheme. It further found that Section 2(9)(D) applied because the persons allegedly providing the cash were not traceable and the source of consideration remained unexplained. The appellant's willingness to offer the amount to tax did not bar PBPT proceedings, as the Act operates independently of the Income-tax Act. The provisional attachment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
