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...
Authority under the Customs Act to proceed against the property of a third party - Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions - The High Court emphasizes that respondent No. 2 cannot question the petitioner’s ownership of the flat, even if it was purchased by her husband. Referring to Section 3 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the court states that only the husband could question the petitioner’s ownership, and any such dispute should be resolved in a civil court. - The High Court finds that respondent No. 2 lacked jurisdiction to issue the communication under the Customs Act. There is no provision allowing customs officials to attach the property of a third party, such as the petitioner, who is not connected to any recovery under the Customs Act.
Authority under the Customs Act to proceed against the property of a third party - Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions - The High Court emphasizes that respondent No. 2 cannot question the petitioner’s ownership of the flat, even if it was purchased by her husband. Referring to Section 3 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the court states that only the husband could question the petitioner’s ownership, and any such dispute should be resolved in a civil court. - The High Court finds that respondent No. 2 lacked jurisdiction to issue the communication under the Customs Act. There is no provision allowing customs officials to attach the property of a third party, such as the petitioner, who is not connected to any recovery under the Customs Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
