Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 95791 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For smuggled notified gold recovered from premises under a person's possession or control, the burden shifts to that person to prove lawful import, procurement or possession. On the facts recorded, no documents or plausible explanation supported licit storage, and the surrounding circumstances independently showed keeping, harbouring and dealing with goods liable to confiscation, so liability under sections 112(a) and 112(b) was sustained. The penalty was nevertheless reduced because the seized gold lacked foreign markings and the departmental statements had not satisfied the safeguards contemplated by section 138B, making those factors relevant to quantum but not to exoneration. The appeal was partly allowed only on penalty.
For smuggled notified gold recovered from premises under a person's possession or control, the burden shifts to that person to prove lawful import, procurement or possession. On the facts recorded, no documents or plausible explanation supported licit storage, and the surrounding circumstances independently showed keeping, harbouring and dealing with goods liable to confiscation, so liability under sections 112(a) and 112(b) was sustained. The penalty was nevertheless reduced because the seized gold lacked foreign markings and the departmental statements had not satisfied the safeguards contemplated by section 138B, making those factors relevant to quantum but not to exoneration. The appeal was partly allowed only on penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
