Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Seizure of Indian Rupees under PMLA, 2002 due to alleged involvement in Hawala transaction. Appellant argued not being accused in FIR or ECIR, thus seizure u/s 17 not valid. However, evidence indicated Hawala transaction of Rs.15 Crore and appellant's failure to explain the source of funds. Statement u/s 50 implicated appellant in facilitating transaction. Second argument on bank withdrawals not clarifying legitimate use of funds for foreign exchange. Appellant's involvement in large transactions not substantiated. Appeal dismissed by Appellate Tribunal.
Seizure of Indian Rupees under PMLA, 2002 due to alleged involvement in Hawala transaction. Appellant argued not being accused in FIR or ECIR, thus seizure u/s 17 not valid. However, evidence indicated Hawala transaction of Rs.15 Crore and appellant's failure to explain the source of funds. Statement u/s 50 implicated appellant in facilitating transaction. Second argument on bank withdrawals not clarifying legitimate use of funds for foreign exchange. Appellant's involvement in large transactions not substantiated. Appeal dismissed by Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
