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...
Unauthenticated electronic invoices and computer printouts could...
Electronic-record authentication requirements defeated the undervaluation claim, resulting in cancellation of reassessed value, duties, confiscation, fines and penalties.
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
Unauthenticated electronic invoices and computer printouts could not establish undervaluation of imported heavy earth-moving machinery. Unsigned invoices did not attract the statutory presumption under section 139, while computer-generated invoices were inadmissible because safeguards for electronic records under section 138C(2) were not met. Statements alleging extra remittances to the overseas supplier lacked independent corroboration and admissible supporting evidence. Substantially identical evidence from the same investigation had already been found insufficient in connected proceedings. The redetermined value, differential duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were set aside, with consequential relief.
Unauthenticated electronic invoices and computer printouts could not establish undervaluation of imported heavy earth-moving machinery. Unsigned invoices did not attract the statutory presumption under section 139, while computer-generated invoices were inadmissible because safeguards for electronic records under section 138C(2) were not met. Statements alleging extra remittances to the overseas supplier lacked independent corroboration and admissible supporting evidence. Substantially identical evidence from the same investigation had already been found insufficient in connected proceedings. The redetermined value, differential duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were set aside, with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.