Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
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 
