Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Seizure of goods as smuggled into the country from Myanmar u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden of proof lies on the respondent u/s 123 to show that the seized areca nuts are not smuggled goods, or on the Department u/s 111 to establish that the seized betel nuts are of foreign origin and smuggled before confiscation. The High Court emphasized that the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction u/s 130. The Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal ignored material evidence or acted without evidence, which could constitute a substantial question of law. The Court analyzed the evidence, including the proximity to the international border, lack of foreign markings, absence of expert opinion on origin, and documents showing purchase from a local store. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's order cannot be treated as perverse, as it was not arrived at without evidence or reasons, thus answering the substantial question of law framed regarding perversity against the appellant.
Seizure of goods as smuggled into the country from Myanmar u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden of proof lies on the respondent u/s 123 to show that the seized areca nuts are not smuggled goods, or on the Department u/s 111 to establish that the seized betel nuts are of foreign origin and smuggled before confiscation. The High Court emphasized that the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction u/s 130. The Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal ignored material evidence or acted without evidence, which could constitute a substantial question of law. The Court analyzed the evidence, including the proximity to the international border, lack of foreign markings, absence of expert opinion on origin, and documents showing purchase from a local store. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's order cannot be treated as perverse, as it was not arrived at without evidence or reasons, thus answering the substantial question of law framed regarding perversity against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4884 
