Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Attachment of Properties - The Custodian sought to recover significant sums from different individuals or entities, claiming they were indebted to the notified party. - The Special Court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs with Interest - diversion of funds from the banks/FIs to the individual accounts of certain brokers - The Supreme Court addressed several key issues arising from the appeals under the Act of 1992, including the notification of individuals, recovery of dues, and the burden of proof. It clarified that property attachment under the Act occurs from the date of notification forward, not retroactively. The SC found it insufficient to establish the appellants' liabilities. Moreover, it emphasized the Custodian's responsibility to prove the debts before shifting the burden onto the appellants. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the appellants, quashing the judgments and allowing the appeals.
Attachment of Properties - The Custodian sought to recover significant sums from different individuals or entities, claiming they were indebted to the notified party. - The Special Court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs with Interest - diversion of funds from the banks/FIs to the individual accounts of certain brokers - The Supreme Court addressed several key issues arising from the appeals under the Act of 1992, including the notification of individuals, recovery of dues, and the burden of proof. It clarified that property attachment under the Act occurs from the date of notification forward, not retroactively. The SC found it insufficient to establish the appellants' liabilities. Moreover, it emphasized the Custodian's responsibility to prove the debts before shifting the burden onto the appellants. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the appellants, quashing the judgments and allowing the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
