Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Transaction value in customs valuation was upheld because the Department failed to prove undervaluation with cogent, admissible and corroborated evidence. Parallel invoices were unauthenticated, overseas verification was untested by cross-examination, insurance values and e-mails were unreliable, and retracted statements lacked independent corroboration; the declared price could not therefore be rejected. As the re-determination of assessable value collapsed, the differential duty demand, confiscation and importer's penalty also failed, and no independent evidence supported the abettor's penalty. The extended period of limitation was likewise unsustainable because suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved, rendering the demand time-barred.
Transaction value in customs valuation was upheld because the Department failed to prove undervaluation with cogent, admissible and corroborated evidence. Parallel invoices were unauthenticated, overseas verification was untested by cross-examination, insurance values and e-mails were unreliable, and retracted statements lacked independent corroboration; the declared price could not therefore be rejected. As the re-determination of assessable value collapsed, the differential duty demand, confiscation and importer's penalty also failed, and no independent evidence supported the abettor's penalty. The extended period of limitation was likewise unsustainable because suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved, rendering the demand time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
