Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
In a search assessment, additions for unaccounted advances and cash receipts were upheld on the basis of composite appellate orders and concurrent findings of fact drawn from seized material. The High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had considered the entire record across the relevant years, and the Tribunal's lack of separate elaborate reasoning for one year did not, by itself, justify remand. Because the dispute turned on appreciation of evidence and factual conclusions, no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A, and the appeal was dismissed.
In a search assessment, additions for unaccounted advances and cash receipts were upheld on the basis of composite appellate orders and concurrent findings of fact drawn from seized material. The High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had considered the entire record across the relevant years, and the Tribunal's lack of separate elaborate reasoning for one year did not, by itself, justify remand. Because the dispute turned on appreciation of evidence and factual conclusions, no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.