Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The case involved penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act for smuggling foreign gold. The tribunal held that statements without cross-examination are inadmissible. The appellant no. 2 wasn't actively involved in smuggling, so penalties were unsustainable. Appellant no. 1's implication lacked evidence and violated section 138B. Both appellants didn't claim gold ownership, so burden of proof u/s 123 didn't apply. Penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) were unsupportable. Thus, penalties on both appellants were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The case involved penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act for smuggling foreign gold. The tribunal held that statements without cross-examination are inadmissible. The appellant no. 2 wasn't actively involved in smuggling, so penalties were unsustainable. Appellant no. 1's implication lacked evidence and violated section 138B. Both appellants didn't claim gold ownership, so burden of proof u/s 123 didn't apply. Penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) were unsupportable. Thus, penalties on both appellants were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
