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...
Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 allows proper officers to seize goods liable for confiscation. The Supreme Court in Indru Ramchand Bharvani v. Union of India held that courts should not interfere with fact-finding bodies' conclusions based on preponderance of evidence, unless unreasonable. The preventive wing of customs has jurisdiction to seize goods from domestic cargo complexes, as preventive officers have overall jurisdiction to prevent smuggling under the Customs Act and relevant manuals. Notifications issued u/s 4(1) for administrative convenience should be interpreted to give effect to their purpose, without hair-splitting exercises by courts. Consequently, the seizure by the preventive department was valid, and the High Court order setting it aside was incorrect. The appeal is allowed.
Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 allows proper officers to seize goods liable for confiscation. The Supreme Court in Indru Ramchand Bharvani v. Union of India held that courts should not interfere with fact-finding bodies' conclusions based on preponderance of evidence, unless unreasonable. The preventive wing of customs has jurisdiction to seize goods from domestic cargo complexes, as preventive officers have overall jurisdiction to prevent smuggling under the Customs Act and relevant manuals. Notifications issued u/s 4(1) for administrative convenience should be interpreted to give effect to their purpose, without hair-splitting exercises by courts. Consequently, the seizure by the preventive department was valid, and the High Court order setting it aside was incorrect. The appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
