Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
CESTAT ruled against absolute confiscation of gold and penalties under s.112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. Officers seized gold based on alleged smuggling from Bangladesh, but failed to establish reasonable belief required under s.123. Evidence showed gold was legally procured through domestic channels, with documentation from jewelers and HDFC Bank confirming legitimate purchase chain. Tribunal held burden of proof remained with department to prove smuggled nature, which they failed to demonstrate. No corroborative evidence supported smuggling allegations. Since underlying confiscation was unsustainable, consequent penalties were also set aside. Appellant successfully established domestic procurement through documented chain of transactions, leading to appeal being allowed.
CESTAT ruled against absolute confiscation of gold and penalties under s.112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. Officers seized gold based on alleged smuggling from Bangladesh, but failed to establish reasonable belief required under s.123. Evidence showed gold was legally procured through domestic channels, with documentation from jewelers and HDFC Bank confirming legitimate purchase chain. Tribunal held burden of proof remained with department to prove smuggled nature, which they failed to demonstrate. No corroborative evidence supported smuggling allegations. Since underlying confiscation was unsustainable, consequent penalties were also set aside. Appellant successfully established domestic procurement through documented chain of transactions, leading to appeal being allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
