Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
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.