Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Appellate jurisdiction is not excluded merely because an article...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary stage.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Appellate jurisdiction is not excluded merely because an article is recovered from an international passenger at an airport. The exclusion for goods imported or exported as baggage applies only where the challenged order clearly and unambiguously concerns goods having that character. A gold kada worn on a passenger's wrist could not, at the preliminary stage, conclusively be treated as baggage; whether it was a personal ornament, bona fide personal effect, declarable article, or concealed goods required merits examination. Departmental characterisation cannot determine jurisdiction, and authorities involving goods recovered from luggage or admitted baggage are distinguishable. The appeal was therefore maintainable and listed for disposal on merits.
Appellate jurisdiction is not excluded merely because an article is recovered from an international passenger at an airport. The exclusion for goods imported or exported as baggage applies only where the challenged order clearly and unambiguously concerns goods having that character. A gold kada worn on a passenger's wrist could not, at the preliminary stage, conclusively be treated as baggage; whether it was a personal ornament, bona fide personal effect, declarable article, or concealed goods required merits examination. Departmental characterisation cannot determine jurisdiction, and authorities involving goods recovered from luggage or admitted baggage are distinguishable. The appeal was therefore maintainable and listed for disposal on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.