Concurrent anticipatory-bail jurisdiction permits applications before either forum, while secured evidence may negate custodial interrogation in GST e...
Transfer Pricing Officer jurisdiction is transaction-specific, excluding permanent establishment determinations and requiring independent assessment o...
Rental income valuation requires credible local comparables; family-business salary and commercially expedient unsecured-loan interest remained deduct...
The appellants were found involved in smuggling one cut piece of foreign origin gold weighing 645.500 grams. A concealed the gold in his shoe to deliver it outside the airport premises, while B abetted the offense. Both were held liable for penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering their lack of prior antecedents and not being owners or beneficiaries, the Appellate Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on them from Rs. 5,00,000/- each to Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
The appellants were found involved in smuggling one cut piece of foreign origin gold weighing 645.500 grams. A concealed the gold in his shoe to deliver it outside the airport premises, while B abetted the offense. Both were held liable for penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering their lack of prior antecedents and not being owners or beneficiaries, the Appellate Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on them from Rs. 5,00,000/- each to Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4884 
