Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
10kg of gold consisting of 10 gold bars, with 7 bars bearing foreign markings and 3 bars without markings, was seized along with cash from an employee of the appellant. The appellant claimed the 3 unmarked bars were melted from old jewelry. Section 123 of the Customs Act was invoked, requiring the appellant to prove the 7 marked bars were not smuggled goods. The Tribunal held there was reasonable belief of smuggling for the 7 bars, but not for the 3 unmarked bars, shifting the burden of proof to the department for those. The department failed to prove the 3 bars were smuggled. Confiscation of the 7 marked bars was upheld as smuggled goods u/s 111(d), but confiscation of the 3 unmarked bars was set aside. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA were reduced proportionately. The appeal was partly allowed, and the department was directed to release the 3 unmarked bars.
10kg of gold consisting of 10 gold bars, with 7 bars bearing foreign markings and 3 bars without markings, was seized along with cash from an employee of the appellant. The appellant claimed the 3 unmarked bars were melted from old jewelry. Section 123 of the Customs Act was invoked, requiring the appellant to prove the 7 marked bars were not smuggled goods. The Tribunal held there was reasonable belief of smuggling for the 7 bars, but not for the 3 unmarked bars, shifting the burden of proof to the department for those. The department failed to prove the 3 bars were smuggled. Confiscation of the 7 marked bars was upheld as smuggled goods u/s 111(d), but confiscation of the 3 unmarked bars was set aside. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA were reduced proportionately. The appeal was partly allowed, and the department was directed to release the 3 unmarked bars.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
