Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
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...
Duty demand - Bonded Warehouse - seizure of 264 cases found outside the warehouse - Unauthorisedly clearance of 27 cases from the notified public bonded warehouse - On the 264 Cases Found Outside the Warehouse: The Supreme Court found that the appellant had acted within their rights under Section 64(d) of the Customs Act, with sanctioned permission from the Superintendent. Therefore, it was incorrect to treat these goods as having been improperly removed. The Court concluded that Sections 71 and 72 of the Customs Act were not applicable to these goods. - On the 27 Missing Cases: The Court agreed with the respondent's view that these goods were unauthorisedly removed from the warehouse, thus justifying the duty demand and interest levy.
Duty demand - Bonded Warehouse - seizure of 264 cases found outside the warehouse - Unauthorisedly clearance of 27 cases from the notified public bonded warehouse - On the 264 Cases Found Outside the Warehouse: The Supreme Court found that the appellant had acted within their rights under Section 64(d) of the Customs Act, with sanctioned permission from the Superintendent. Therefore, it was incorrect to treat these goods as having been improperly removed. The Court concluded that Sections 71 and 72 of the Customs Act were not applicable to these goods. - On the 27 Missing Cases: The Court agreed with the respondent's view that these goods were unauthorisedly removed from the warehouse, thus justifying the duty demand and interest levy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.