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...
The High Court considered a case involving the release of seized goods u/s 110A. The issue was the non-issuance of a show cause notice within the stipulated time due to valuation and duty discrepancies of imported cutting blades. The Court held that a Circular from 2017 was superseded by a 2018 amendment exempting cases with provisional release from the time limit for issuing show cause notices. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. Two conditions were imposed for provisional release: execution of a bond and a bank guarantee. The Court affirmed the bond condition but directed the respondent to provide a bank guarantee of Rs. 25,00,000/- and a bond for Rs. 40,00,000/- to protect revenue interests. Upon compliance with the conditions, the seized goods would be provisionally released within 10 days. The appeal was disposed of, and the application closed.
The High Court considered a case involving the release of seized goods u/s 110A. The issue was the non-issuance of a show cause notice within the stipulated time due to valuation and duty discrepancies of imported cutting blades. The Court held that a Circular from 2017 was superseded by a 2018 amendment exempting cases with provisional release from the time limit for issuing show cause notices. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. Two conditions were imposed for provisional release: execution of a bond and a bank guarantee. The Court affirmed the bond condition but directed the respondent to provide a bank guarantee of Rs. 25,00,000/- and a bond for Rs. 40,00,000/- to protect revenue interests. Upon compliance with the conditions, the seized goods would be provisionally released within 10 days. The appeal was disposed of, and the application closed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
