Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court quashed the seizure order dated 14.08.2020, holding that it violated Sections 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The second petitioner had locus standi to challenge the seizure memo along with the first petitioner. The petitioners were not required to exhaust the alternative remedy u/s 128 of the Customs Act, as the seizure memo did not comply with Section 110 by not providing reasons. The contents of the Panchnama could not be read into the seizure memo as per the Notification dated 08.02.2017. The seizing officer failed to disclose minimal reasons in the seizure memo as required u/s 110(1A), (1B), (1C) of the Customs Act. The impugned seizure memo was unsustainable and deserved to be quashed.
The High Court quashed the seizure order dated 14.08.2020, holding that it violated Sections 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The second petitioner had locus standi to challenge the seizure memo along with the first petitioner. The petitioners were not required to exhaust the alternative remedy u/s 128 of the Customs Act, as the seizure memo did not comply with Section 110 by not providing reasons. The contents of the Panchnama could not be read into the seizure memo as per the Notification dated 08.02.2017. The seizing officer failed to disclose minimal reasons in the seizure memo as required u/s 110(1A), (1B), (1C) of the Customs Act. The impugned seizure memo was unsustainable and deserved to be quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
