Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT dismissed the appeals challenging denial of cross-examination requests for officers who recorded statements under the Customs Act and FERA. The tribunal determined that appellants failed to demonstrate how prejudice was caused by denial of cross-examination or establish reasonable grounds that coercion occurred during statement recording. The AT noted it was unlikely departmental officers would admit to coercive tactics during cross-examination. The tribunal observed that appellants had not examined the merits of the 61 relied-upon documents furnished per the Special Director's directions, instead raising cross-examination issues without demonstrating necessity. The tribunal found support in the Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and declined to intervene with the interlocutory orders.
The AT dismissed the appeals challenging denial of cross-examination requests for officers who recorded statements under the Customs Act and FERA. The tribunal determined that appellants failed to demonstrate how prejudice was caused by denial of cross-examination or establish reasonable grounds that coercion occurred during statement recording. The AT noted it was unlikely departmental officers would admit to coercive tactics during cross-examination. The tribunal observed that appellants had not examined the merits of the 61 relied-upon documents furnished per the Special Director's directions, instead raising cross-examination issues without demonstrating necessity. The tribunal found support in the Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and declined to intervene with the interlocutory orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
