Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The High Court considered a case involving smuggling of gold under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of The Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners were found in possession of 4.200 kgs of gold valued at Rs. 2,25,54,000 without permission, admitted to smuggling, and were intercepted while passing through the green channel. The gold was seized and confiscated. The 2nd petitioner, an unsuspecting traveler, was granted a lenient view as she was unaware of the smuggling plan and lacked knowledge of Indian laws. She deposited Rs. 10,00,000 and has a son receiving medical treatment in Malaysia. Due to an Extradition Treaty, the Court allowed the return of the 2nd petitioner's Malaysian passport with conditions, while confirming the decision against the 1st petitioner. The criminal revision case was partially allowed.
The High Court considered a case involving smuggling of gold under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of The Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners were found in possession of 4.200 kgs of gold valued at Rs. 2,25,54,000 without permission, admitted to smuggling, and were intercepted while passing through the green channel. The gold was seized and confiscated. The 2nd petitioner, an unsuspecting traveler, was granted a lenient view as she was unaware of the smuggling plan and lacked knowledge of Indian laws. She deposited Rs. 10,00,000 and has a son receiving medical treatment in Malaysia. Due to an Extradition Treaty, the Court allowed the return of the 2nd petitioner's Malaysian passport with conditions, while confirming the decision against the 1st petitioner. The criminal revision case was partially allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
