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...
Seizure of gold and a vehicle by police authorities from the appellant and others. The police handed over the seized goods to customs authorities. The appellant is the brother-in-law of the co-accused, who was coming from Riyadh. The appellant went to receive the co-accused at the airport, being a close relative. There is no confessional statement from the appellant about being aware of the gold. The Bombay High Court has held that goods seized by police and handed over to customs are not "goods seized" u/s 123 of the Customs Act, making it inapplicable in this case. The co-accused stated the appellant was unaware of the foreign marked gold (FMG) in his luggage. The allegation of taking a longer route to evade authorities lacks evidence. The appellant, a police constable, stated he went to receive his brother-in-law and was unaware of the items in his baggage. There is no substantive evidence against the appellant, and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Seizure of gold and a vehicle by police authorities from the appellant and others. The police handed over the seized goods to customs authorities. The appellant is the brother-in-law of the co-accused, who was coming from Riyadh. The appellant went to receive the co-accused at the airport, being a close relative. There is no confessional statement from the appellant about being aware of the gold. The Bombay High Court has held that goods seized by police and handed over to customs are not "goods seized" u/s 123 of the Customs Act, making it inapplicable in this case. The co-accused stated the appellant was unaware of the foreign marked gold (FMG) in his luggage. The allegation of taking a longer route to evade authorities lacks evidence. The appellant, a police constable, stated he went to receive his brother-in-law and was unaware of the items in his baggage. There is no substantive evidence against the appellant, and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
