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 addressed the issue of seizure of goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 by Customs Authorities outside their designated area. The jurisdiction of concerned Officers to seize "gold bullions" was questioned as the Customs House did not fall within the jurisdictional area of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) West Bengal. The Court noted the absence of an application for release or provisional release u/s 110A. The ownership of the goods was in dispute, and the petitioner failed to establish ownership. The seizure order by Customs Officers was found to be without jurisdictional error, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The High Court addressed the issue of seizure of goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 by Customs Authorities outside their designated area. The jurisdiction of concerned Officers to seize "gold bullions" was questioned as the Customs House did not fall within the jurisdictional area of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) West Bengal. The Court noted the absence of an application for release or provisional release u/s 110A. The ownership of the goods was in dispute, and the petitioner failed to establish ownership. The seizure order by Customs Officers was found to be without jurisdictional error, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.